# In re Hughey Supreme Court of Texas, No. 25-0463 **In re Hughey, No. 25-0463, is before the Supreme Court of Texas. Key issue: Whether Government Code § 154.101(f), as amended in 2023, bars anyone but a certified shorthand reporter from preparing a written transcript of a deposition, or whether Rules 199.1(c) and 203.6(a) let a party use a transcription made from a non-stenographic (Skribe) recording.** Practice areas: civil procedure, employment ## Key issues - Whether Government Code § 154.101(f), as amended in 2023, bars anyone but a certified shorthand reporter from preparing a written transcript of a deposition, or whether Rules 199.1(c) and 203.6(a) let a party use a transcription made from a non-stenographic (Skribe) recording. - Whether the trial court clearly abused its discretion by striking that transcript and quashing further non-stenographic depositions, and whether mandamus lies given the video, remaining discovery time and the option of a certified-reporter transcript. ## Factual History 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 (Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed (Relator), PDF p. 16; Brief on the Merits (Real Parties in Interest), PDF p. 10). 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 (Brief on the Merits (Relator), PDF pp. 12, 20). Reddico's counsel accepted Skribe's terms of service before the January 29, 2025 deposition of its representative, Melissa Redd (Brief on the Merits (Relator), PDF p. 12; Brief on the Merits (Real Parties in Interest), PDF pp. 10-11). Reddico says the terms never disclosed that the transcript would come from voice-recognition software rather than a certified shorthand reporter (Brief on the Merits (Real Parties in Interest), PDF p. 11). ## Procedural History 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 (Brief on the Merits (Real Parties in Interest), PDF pp. 12-13). On April 1, 2025 the trial court granted both motions with about a month of discovery left (Brief on the Merits (Real Parties in Interest), PDF p. 13). The court denied Hughey's motion to reconsider on May 14, 2025 (Brief on the Merits (Real Parties in Interest), PDF p. 14), and the Ninth Court of Appeals (Beaumont) denied mandamus on May 29, 2025 (Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed (Relator), PDF p. 21). The Supreme Court set the case for oral argument on October 6, 2026, and heard it that day. ## Issues Presented - Hughey (Brief on the Merits (Relator), PDF p. 14): 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 (Brief on the Merits (Real Parties in Interest), PDF p. 9): (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. ## Standard(s) of Review 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 (Brief on the Merits (Relator), PDF p. 26). ## Legal Arguments **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 (Brief on the Merits (Relator), PDF pp. 6, 18). 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 (Brief on the Merits (Relator), PDF p. 18). The court can require a certified-reporter transcript for good cause, but not categorically (Brief on the Merits (Relator), PDF p. 46). 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 (Reply Brief (Relator), PDF p. 2). **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 (Brief on the Merits (Real Parties in Interest), PDF p. 15). 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 (Brief on the Merits (Real Parties in Interest), PDF pp. 2, 16). At the petition stage it added that if the rules permit non-reporter transcripts they are unconstitutional (Response to Petition for Writ of Mandamus Filed (Real Parties in Interest), PDF p. 4). Reddico also argues the question of voice-recognition transcripts belongs to the Legislature (Brief on the Merits (Real Parties in Interest), PDF p. 14). **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 (Reply Brief (Relator), PDF p. 26; Brief on the Merits (Relator), PDF p. 6). **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 (Brief on the Merits (Real Parties in Interest), PDF pp. 14-15). ## Stated Reasons the Court Should Take the Case 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 (Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed (Relator), PDF p. 13). Reddico argued that an appeal would suffice (Response to Petition for Writ of Mandamus Filed (Real Parties in Interest), PDF p. 4). ## Practice Area Tags civil-procedure, employment ## Procedural Posture/Vehicle Original proceeding (petition for writ of mandamus) after the Ninth Court of Appeals (Beaumont) denied relief; argued October 6, 2026. Not yet decided. ## Amicus Involvement - TEXDRA filed an amicus brief supporting Reddico's reading of Chapter 154 (Brief on the Merits (Relator), PDF p. 27). - The docket shows several other amicus briefs and letters, which are not summarized here. --- Source: The SCOTX Report, https://scotxreport.com/cases/25-0463. AI-generated summary of the Court's opinion, orders and the parties' briefs, with pin cites to the page of each document; verify against the Court's own documents at search.txcourts.gov.