[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 2]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 2856]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




RULE 30 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND RESTORATION OF THE 
                        STENOGRAPHIC PREFERENCE

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. HOWARD COBLE

                           of north carolina

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, February 23, 1999

  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation that will 
restore the stenographic preference for depositions taken in federal 
court proceedings. This bill is identical to legislation which I 
sponsored last term; and is similar to a bill authored by Senator 
Grassley during the 105th Congress.
  For 23 years, Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 
permitted the use of non-stenographic means to record depositions, but 
only pursuant to court order or the written stipulation of the parties. 
In December of 1993, however, the Chief Justice submitted a 
recommendation pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act that eliminated the 
old Rule 30 requirement of a court order or stipulation. The revision 
also afforded each party the right to arrange for recording of a 
deposition by non-stenographic means.
  When representatives of the Judicial Conference testified on the 
subject in 1993, they could not provide the Subcommittee on Courts and 
Intellectual Property with a single justification for their 
recommendation. As a result, the Subcommittee unanimously approved 
legislation, H.R. 2814, to prevent implementation of the change. The 
full House of Representatives followed suit by passing the bill under 
suspension of the rules on November 3, 1993.
  It is my understanding that the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on 
Courts and Administrative Practice also held hearings on Rule 30 during 
the 103rd Congress. I believe the members who participated in those 
hearings received testimony which generated concerns about the 
reliability and durability of video or audio tape alternatives to 
stenographic depositions. Then and since, court reporters have 
complained of increased difficulty in identifying speakers, deciphering 
unintelligible passages, and reconstructing accurate testimony from 
``blank'' passages when relying on mechanical recordings. In contrast, 
information was also submitted at this time which suggested that the 
stenographic method will become even more cost-effective in the future 
as a result of improvements in recording technology.
  These findings from the 103rd Congress were confirmed in the 104th 
when the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property again 
conducted its own hearing on H.R. 1445, the precursor to the bill I am 
introducing today; and later, when the Committee on the Judiciary 
reported H.R. 1445 to the full House.
  Mr. Speaker, I have never entirely understood why Rule 30 was changed 
in the first place. Like many others, I have found that experience is 
the best teacher; and it has been my experience that no one in my 
district was displeased with the application of the law prior to 1993. 
I visit my district frequently and maintain good relations with members 
of the bench and bar, and not one attorney or judge ever complained 
about the operation of Rule 30 to me before 1993.
  I am pleased to continue my ongoing support for reinstating the pre-
1993 law on Rule 30 by sponsoring this bill.

                          ____________________