The Supreme Court of Texas heard argument on whether a deposition transcript made with AI can stand without a certified court reporter
In re Patrick Hughey is a mandamus proceeding filed May 29th, 2025. It began in a Montgomery County wrongful termination suit, where Courthouse News reports the trial court struck a deposition transcript generated with AI because no certified shorthand reporter prepared it. The Supreme Court of Texas heard argument on October 6th, 2026, with the Texas Deposition Reporters Association given time as amicus. The court's rules already let a written transcription of a non-stenographic recording be used to the same extent as a stenographic deposition. They also let a court require a certified reporter's transcript for good cause. The docket also shows amicus filings from the Texas Court Reporters Association and the Texas Trial Lawyers Association. The court's orders pronounced through October 9th, 2026 carry no ruling in the case. What it decides reaches every trial court in the state.
How to take part
The argument date has passed and the court's ruling is pending. The court publishes the full docket and the briefs on its own case page, and it posts video of its oral arguments. Anyone can read what each side filed.
Where
Statewide. This decision applies across Texas rather than to a named county.
Timeline
- filed
Mandamus petition filed
- filed
Amicus brief from the Texas Court Reporters Association
- hearing
Oral argument before the Supreme Court of Texas
- Today
How this decision moved
One dated line per check, oldest first. A line that says nothing changed means somebody looked and it had not.
- 2026-09-07
Admitted. The court's own case page sets oral argument for the morning of October 6th, 2026. The briefs on the merits are filed on both sides and three amicus filings are in, two of them from the trades whose work the answer decides.
- 2026-09-10
The mandamus is still set for argument on October 6th and the court has not moved the date. Nothing new has been docketed that would change what is to be argued.
- 2026-09-13
Checked and unchanged. Still pending, with no dated movement.
- 2026-09-16
The mandamus argument is still set for October 6th with the court reporters' association still a party. Nothing has been filed to move the date.
- 2026-09-19
The argument date is still set and the court reporters' association is still a party to the proceeding.
- 2026-09-23
The October 6th argument is still on the court's calendar.
- 2026-09-26
The Supreme Court of Texas still has the argument on its calendar, with the court reporters' association in the proceeding.
- 2026-09-29
The Supreme Court of Texas docket still sets argument in the mandamus proceeding for October 6th.
- 2026-09-30
The court's docket still sets oral argument in the court reporters' mandamus proceeding for October 6th.
- 2026-10-01
Whether the October 6th argument setting still stands is unconfirmed. The court's case page sits on a host that bars automated readers, and the court's published submission schedules do not yet list an October sitting for 2026.
- 2026-10-03
Whether the October 6th argument setting still stands is unconfirmed. The court's case page sits on a host that bars automated readers.
- 2026-10-04
Whether the October 6th argument setting still stands is unconfirmed. The court's case page sits on a host that bars automated readers.
- 2026-10-05
Whether the October 6th argument setting still stands is unconfirmed. The court's case page sits on a host that bars automated readers.
- 2026-10-06
Whether the court heard argument today as set is unconfirmed. Its case page sits on a host that bars automated readers.
- 2026-10-07
The court's own submission schedule for October 6th lists In re Patrick Hughey for argument that morning, with a deposition reporters' association heard as amicus. The court's ruling is what comes next.
- 2026-10-08
The court's own submission schedule still lists the case for argument on October 6th. Whether it was argued as set is unconfirmed, because the case page bars automated readers, and the ruling is still to come.
- 2026-10-11
The court's own submission schedule still lists the case for October 6th. A ruling is the next step.
- 2026-10-15
Courthouse News reports the court heard argument on October 6th, and the case awaits an opinion. The court's own case page bars automated readers, so its docket entries are unconfirmed.
- 2026-10-18
The court's submission schedule and the Courthouse News account still place the argument on October 6th. The court's own case page bars automated readers, so its docket entries are unconfirmed.
The evidence
Every fact above rests on one of these. The words are the source's own.
This case has been set for oral argument at 9:00 a.m., October 6, 2026.Supreme Court of Texas, Case 25-0463 case information Primary source, official · search.txcourts.gov
Case: 25-0463 Date Filed: 05/29/2025 Case Type: Mandamus/Cause Style: IN RE PATRICK HUGHEYSupreme Court of Texas, Case 25-0463 case information Primary source, official · search.txcourts.gov
Amicus Curiae Brief received on behalf of Texas Court Reporters Association, Inc., submitted by Jason Ray of Riggs & Ray P.C. of Austin, Texas.Supreme Court of Texas, Case 25-0463 case information Primary source, official · search.txcourts.gov
Real Party in Interest's Brief on the Merits filed on behalf of Reddico Construction Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Texas, Case 25-0463 case information Primary source, official · search.txcourts.gov
Relator will be represented by Bradley W. Snead (Wright Close Barger & Guzman), from Houston.Supreme Court of Texas, Submission Schedule, Tuesday, October 6, 2026 Primary source, official · txcourts.gov
AUSTIN, Texas (CN) — The Texas Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday over whether an individual should be allowed to submit an AI-generated transcript of a deposition as evidence.Courthouse News Service, Texas high court toys with AI transcripts for witness depositions, October 6th, 2026 Journalism · courthousenews.com
The trial court in Montgomery County struck the AI-generated transcript the employee submitted from the record back in April 2025 because the transcript was not prepared by a certified shorthand reporter.Courthouse News Service, Texas high court toys with AI transcripts for witness depositions, October 6th, 2026 Journalism · courthousenews.com
A non- stenographic recording of an oral deposition, or a written transcription of all or part of such a recording, may be used to the same extent as a deposition taken by stenographic means. However, the court, for good cause shown, may require that the party seeking to use a non- stenographic recording or written transcription first obtain a complete transcript of the deposition recording from a certified court reporter.Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 203.6, Supreme Court of Texas Primary source, official · txcourts.gov
Amicus Curiae, Texas Deposition Reporters Association, will be represented by Shelby O’Brien (Butler Snow LLP), from Austin.Supreme Court of Texas, submission schedule for October 6th, 2026 Primary source, official · txcourts.gov
Orders Pronounced October 9, 2026Supreme Court of Texas, orders pronounced October 9th, 2026 Primary source, official · txcourts.gov
Questions about this decision
Answered from the record itself. Every answer is assembled from stored fields, so an answer the record has no basis for is left out rather than guessed.
What is this decision?
In re Patrick Hughey is a mandamus proceeding filed May 29th, 2025. It began in a Montgomery County wrongful termination suit, where Courthouse News reports the trial court struck a deposition transcript generated with AI because no certified shorthand reporter prepared it. The Supreme Court of Texas heard argument on October 6th, 2026, with the Texas Deposition Reporters Association given time as amicus. The court's rules already let a written transcription of a non-stenographic recording be used to the same extent as a stenographic deposition. They also let a court require a certified reporter's transcript for good cause. The docket also shows amicus filings from the Texas Court Reporters Association and the Texas Trial Lawyers Association. The court's orders pronounced through October 9th, 2026 carry no ruling in the case. What it decides reaches every trial court in the state.
Who decides it?
Supreme Court of Texas decides. The record names the deciding body for every entry it carries.
Can the public take part?
The argument date has passed and the court's ruling is pending. The court publishes the full docket and the briefs on its own case page, and it posts video of its oral arguments. Anyone can read what each side filed. No dated public window is on the record. The deciding body is named and reachable.
Where in Texas does it apply?
It applies statewide.
Has it been decided?
It is pending. No final decision is on the record.
What happens next?
No future date is on the record. The last dated step on it was hearing on October 6th.
When did it start?
The earliest date on its record is May 29th, 2025.
What kind of decision is it?
It is filed under state policy.
What sources back it?
Five sources back it. Four of them are primary.
When was it last checked?
Every fact on it was last verified against its source on October 18th, 2026.
Cite this
Texas AI Docket, The Supreme Court of Texas heard argument on whether a deposition transcript made with AI can stand without a certified court reporter. Tracked since May 29th, 2025. Last verified October 18th, 2026. https://texasaidocket.com/item/tx-2026-0127/. Reuse permitted under CC BY 4.0 with attribution. The same entry is in the docket JSON as item tx-2026-0127.
Beat
Filed under State policy, with every other decision on that beat.