LegalTek Legal Video Services is a member of the American Guild of Court Videographers.  This organization is the nation's only organization of professionals specifically trained in all aspects of legal video. Many videographers today do not realize that legal video is far more than just taping video depositions with a "talking head" shot. Much to the contrary, legal video includes such things as taping scenes of incidents, proof of damages, evidence of insurance fraud, video wills, day-in-the-life documentaries, pre-construction surveys, settlement documentaries and more.

The reason for the popularity of the video recording of evidence (in many cases) is the impossibility of bringing the "scene of the crime" or "damaged claims" in a law suit physically into the courtroom.  The ease and low cost of video recording, the addition of audio and the possibility of immediate projection make video the medium of choice in the modern courtroom.

When it comes to depositions, the advantage of video recording is that it eliminates the high cost of bringing witnesses to the witness stand from remote locations during a trial and the opportunity of unrestricted time limits (in most states) on their examination of the witness.  Because the witness is not intimidated by the formality of the courtroom, they are more liable to expand their answers giving the deposing attorneys the answers for which they are looking.

As a member of the American Guild of Court Videographers LegalTek Legal Video Services operates its legal video division under Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  This rule refers to the Federal law governing the admissibility of video recorded evidence (ie. depositions) in law suits.

Rule 30(b)(4):  "the parties may stipulate in writing or the court may upon motion order that the testimony at a deposition be recorded by other than stenographic means.  The stipulation or order shall designate the person before whom the deposition shall be taken, the manner of recording, preserving and filing the deposition, and may include other provisions to assure that the recorded testimony will be accurate and trustworthy.  A party may arrange to have a stenographic transcription made at [their] own expense.  Any objections under subdivision (c), any changes made by the witness, [their] signature identifying the deposition at [their] own or the statement of the officer that is required if the witness does not sign, as provided in subdivision (e), and the certification of the officer required by subdivision (f) shall be set forth in a writing to accompany a deposition recorded by non-stenographic means."

Case in point.

The Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a "professional videographer" was required when a party wished to have a deposition video recorded and ruled against the law firm that wished to use their own in-house videographer to tape a deposition.

In its decision, the court said:  "It is clear that the Code of Civil Procedure points out that accuracy and trustworthiness of the videotaped deposition must be provided for.  In any non-videotaped deposition, a certified stenographic reporter is required in order to protect the objectivity and validity as well as the accuracy and trustworthiness of the transcribed deposition.  It would be inconsistent to provide for a certified professional reporter to be used when transcribing and not to require that a professional videographer be used in a videotaped deposition."

"Furthermore, it is plaintiff's request to take the deposition.  It is plaintiff's responsibility to provide for the objectivity and trustworthiness as well as the accuracy of the deposed party.  It is indeed not defendant's deposition in the instant case.  It is unreasonable to require the opposing party to incur the expense of a videotape of its own."

The ruling goes on to say:  "We conclude that a party seeking a deposition, is desirous of using a videotape of the deposition, shall provide a disinterested professional videographer to take the deposition.  Accordingly, this matter is remanded to the trial court to allow the parties to proceed consistent with the views expressed hereinabove."