Patrick Hughey sued his former employer, Reddico Construction, for wrongful termination under the Workers' Compensation Act, alleging he was fired two days after reporting a workplace injury; Reddico says it fired him for verbally abusing his manager.¹ In discovery Hughey noticed the deposition of Reddico's corporate representative through Skribe, a company that records Zoom depositions non-stenographically, runs speech-to-text on the recording, and has a human transcriptionist review the result.² Reddico's counsel accepted Skribe's terms of service before the January 29, 2025 deposition of its representative, Melissa Redd.³ Reddico says the terms never disclosed that the transcript would come from voice-recognition software rather than a certified shorthand reporter.⁴

On March 25, 2025 Hughey noticed three more Skribe depositions for March 27 and 28, and Reddico moved to quash them and to preclude use of the Redd transcript.¹ On April 1, 2025 the trial court granted both motions with about a month of discovery left.² The court denied Hughey's motion to reconsider on May 14, 2025,³ and the Ninth Court of Appeals (Beaumont) denied mandamus on May 29, 2025.⁴ The Supreme Court set the case for oral argument on October 6, 2026, and heard it that day.

Original proceeding (petition for writ of mandamus) after the Ninth Court of Appeals (Beaumont) denied relief; argued October 6, 2026. Not yet decided.

• Hughey:¹ whether the trial court clearly abused its discretion by striking the written transcription created by Skribe and quashing future non-stenographic depositions, including whether the rules authorize the transcription and whether the statute applies.
• Reddico:² (1) whether exclusion of the transcript warrants mandamus when discovery time remained, a video existed and other deposition methods were open; (2) whether the trial court correctly applied Government Code Chapter 154 to exclude a transcript prepared by voice-recognition software; and (3) whether use of that software is a matter for the Legislature.

Mandamus requires a clear abuse of discretion and no adequate remedy by appeal; a trial court has no discretion in determining or applying the law, and interpreting discovery law is a legal conclusion.¹

Whether a Skribe transcription may be used.

Hughey (Relator): Section 154.101(f) governs "shorthand reporting," not non-stenographic recordings or the written transcriptions made from them, and the Legislature's 2023 amendment, which replaced "recorded" with "reported" and requires consistency with Rules 199.1(c) and 203.6(a), confirms it.¹ The rules let a party record non-stenographically and use a written transcription to the same extent as a stenographic deposition, and they distinguish a written transcription from a certified court reporter's transcript.² The court can require a certified-reporter transcript for good cause, but not categorically.³ In reply, Hughey says Reddico ignores the word "reported," relies on outdated Attorney General opinions, and rests on policy objections that cannot override the text.⁴

Reddico (Real Party in Interest): Chapter 154 lets only a certified shorthand reporter, a party, a party's attorney, or a full-time employee of either create a written transcript, and nothing fits a third-party AI platform.⁵ The 2023 change only widened who may make a non-stenographic recording, not who may prepare a transcript, and Rule 203 prohibits rather than authorizes a transcript prepared by Skribe, because voice-recognition software cannot certify a deposition and shifts the accuracy burden to the party offering it.⁶ At the petition stage it added that if the rules permit non-reporter transcripts they are unconstitutional.⁷ Reddico also argues the question of voice-recognition transcripts belongs to the Legislature.⁸

Whether mandamus is available.

Hughey (Relator): He lacks an adequate remedy by appeal because the order strips him of procedural rights the rules give him and forces him to pay for a certified reporter the rules let him avoid.⁹

Reddico (Real Party in Interest): Mandamus is not the remedy for exclusion of evidence; Hughey had the video, time before trial to obtain a certified-reporter transcript, and the option of playing the video to the jury.¹⁰

Hughey argued the case raises a narrow issue at the core of the rules on cost-effective discovery, that the 2023 amendment was meant to remove any conflict with Rules 199.1(c) and 203.6(a), and that no court has yet interpreted it.¹ Reddico argued that an appeal would suffice.²

• TEXDRA filed an amicus brief supporting Reddico's reading of Chapter 154.¹
• The docket shows several other amicus briefs and letters, which are not summarized here.