Cordero v. Olson Associates PC, 2:23-cv-00756

Plaintiff Heidi Cordero alleges Defendants engaged in unlawful debt collection practices.
Plaintiff’s counsel, Eric Stephenson, recorded depositions using a personal device without informing opposing counsel or explicitly stating this intent in the deposition notices.
The official deposition record was produced by a court reporter; Stephenson's recordings were for personal use.
Defense counsel learned about the recordings after the fact, raising concerns about recording off-the-record conversations.
Defendants moved for a protective order prohibiting personal recordings by Plaintiff’s counsel and requiring destruction of previously made recordings.
Plaintiff opposed, asserting the Federal Rules allow personal recordings by attorneys after notice and that no harm was shown.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Can attorneys make personal recordings of depositions?	Rule 30 doesn't prohibit personal-use recordings for attorneys.	Only a Rule 28 officer may record; party attorneys cannot record at all.	Personal-use recordings by attorneys are permitted if notice is given.
Is prior notice required for personal recordings?	Notice is not required for personal-use recordings.	Rule 30 requires any method of recording (including personal use) to be noticed.	Advance, unambiguous notice is required for both official and personal-use recordings.
Must previously made undisclosed recordings be destroyed?	No harm or prejudice, and opposing counsel waived objection.	Lack of notice and potential for off-record capture justifies destruction.	Recordings made without adequate notice must be destroyed, especially if off-the-record conversation was captured.
Are personal deposition recordings protected by work product?	Work-product doctrine applies since recordings were for attorney’s use.	No privilege since defense counsel was present for the depositions.	Work-product protection does not apply to deposition recordings where opposing counsel was present.

Alcorn v. City of Chi., 336 F.R.D. 440 (N.D. Ill. 2020) (Personal-use recordings by attorneys are not prohibited if an official record is maintained and the rules are followed.)
Schoolcraft v. City of N.Y., 296 F.R.D. 231 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (Personal-use video recordings allowed with proper notice under Rule 30.)
Burgess v. Town of Wallingford, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135781 (D. Conn. Sept. 21, 2012) (Notice is required for personal-use recordings; rules do not prohibit them if proper notice is given.)
Maranville v. Utah Valley Univ., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59617 (D. Utah 2012) (Court concludes plaintiff’s counsel may videotape depositions when a Rule 28 officer is recording stenographically.)