California’s New 7-Hour Deposition Rule

In January of this year, the State of California began instituting Assembly Bill 1875 (CCP Section 2025.290), limiting civil depositions to 7 hours.  Thankfully, California reporters don’t have to worry that attorneys will try to squeeze ten hours of testimony into seven, as the rule states that, “The court shall allow additional time, beyond any limits imposed by this section, if needed to fairly examine the deponent.”

There are six exceptions to this rule, including:

1. employment-related matters,
2. complex litigation,
3. expert witnesses,
4. stipulation among counsel,
5. corporate designees, and
6. possible expiration of the witness.

This makes the rule generally equivalent to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) Rule 30, which also allows for time extensions based on fairness and other factors such as those enumerated above.

To aid reporters in complying with this rule, the California Court Reporters Board (CRB) posted a well-authored Q & A of “Frequently Asked Questions,” which begins by letting California’s reporters know that they are not legally required to be the “timekeeper.” However, California’s reporters should be aware that Stenograph’s Case Catalyst has what was originally referred to as a “Texas Timer” (created over 14 years ago when Texas implemented its 6-hour rule) to track examination time.   Eclipse also has a timekeeping tool for its software users.

The difference between Texas’ 6-hour rule and California’s 7-hour rule is that Texas allots six hours per party to examine the witness, while California’s rule asks that all counsel together spend no more than seven hours examining a witness.  For California’s lawyers, this means they must find ways to discover the information they seek before going on record, stipulate to a time extension, seek an order of the court to extend the time, or work together to divide the deposition time fairly and equitably.

Assembly Bill 1875 was passed in an effort to reduce litigation costs, and whether it succeeds in accomplishing that goal remains to be seen.  What it may inadvertently achieve, however, is a renewed civility between plaintiff and defense counsel as they work to divide the time appropriately between all parties.