California treats a deposition as a court proceeding for interpreter purposes. Before testimony begins, Government Code section 68561(h) requires the interpreter to place three things on the record: their qualifications and credential number, whether the interpreter oath was administered or is already on file, and confirmation that they showed their badge and photo identification to both parties.
That requirement has been law since January 1, 2015. It is short, specific, and almost never discussed in the guidance attorneys and schedulers actually read. It also produces a written artifact in the transcript that settles, in advance, a question that is expensive to litigate afterward.
Why a deposition counts as a court proceeding
The interpreter statutes turn on a defined phrase. Government Code section 68560.5 defines a court proceeding as a civil, criminal, or juvenile proceeding, or a deposition in a civil case filed in a court of record. That final clause is the one that matters for litigation support, because it pulls the ordinary noticed deposition inside the same certification framework that governs a courtroom. The section was last amended by Senate Bill 1155 (Stats. 2018, ch. 852), effective January 1, 2019.
This is where a good deal of published guidance goes wrong. Vendor pages and litigation-support blogs frequently cite Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.320 for interpreter requirements. That section governs the deposition officer: impartiality, equal availability of services to all parties, a prohibition on noting the deponent's demeanor, waiver of objections to the officer's qualifications, and a civil penalty. It contains no interpreter provision at all. If you are checking someone's work, the interpreter chain runs through the Government Code, not through section 2025.320.
The three statements section 68561(h) requires
Where no judge is present, the certified or registered interpreter states on the record:
- Their qualifications, including their name and their certification or registration number.
- That the interpreter's oath was administered to them, or that they have an oath on file with the court.
- That they have presented to both parties the certification or registration badge issued by the Judicial Council, or other documentation verifying the credential, accompanied by photo identification.
Subdivision (h) was added by Assembly Bill 2370 (Stats. 2014, ch. 424), effective January 1, 2015. Note the structure of the third item. It is not enough that the interpreter holds a credential, and not enough that the agency verified it during booking. The statute describes a physical presentation, to both parties, in the room, with photo identification alongside the badge. Defending counsel gets to look at it too.
Where the oath fits
The second item refers to the interpreter's own oath, which is separate from the oath administered to the deponent. Under Evidence Code section 751(a), the interpreter swears to make a true interpretation to the witness in a language the witness understands, and a true interpretation of the witness's answers into English, using their best skill and judgment. Section 751(d) allows an interpreter who is regularly employed by the court and certified or registered to file that oath with the clerk, in which case the filed oath serves for subsequent proceedings until the appointment is revoked. That is why the statute offers two acceptable answers rather than one.
Evidence Code section 750 supplies the reason all of this is enforceable: a person who serves as an interpreter or translator in any action is subject to all the rules of law relating to witnesses. The interpreter is not neutral furniture in the room. They occupy a role the law already knows how to examine, which is also the doorway to challenging one. That is covered separately in our discussion of deposition interpreter fees and the credential tier.
Certified, registered, and why the number matters
Section 68561(h) asks for a certification or registration number because California runs two credential tracks. Under section 68561(a), an interpreter working in a language the Judicial Council has designated must be a certified court interpreter, defined by section 68566 as someone holding a valid certificate from a certification entity approved by the Judicial Council. For languages that are not designated, section 68561(d) provides for court qualification, and interpreters who pass the English fluency examination are known as registered interpreters. Section 68561(c) allows a court to appoint an interpreter who is not certified in a designated language, but only for good cause.
A number is a verifiable object. It can be checked against the Judicial Council's public list of current interpreters while the deposition is still going. A statement that an interpreter is "certified," with no number and no badge, cannot be checked at all. Our overview of what a certified court interpreter actually is covers the tiers in more detail.
What the record looks like when it is done properly
A compliant opening is brief. In practice it runs in this order, immediately after appearances and before the deponent is sworn:
- The interpreter states their full name and spells it for the reporter.
- The interpreter states the language and, where relevant, the variety or dialect they will be interpreting.
- The interpreter states whether they are certified or registered, and gives the number.
- The interpreter states that the oath was administered or that an oath is on file with the court.
- The interpreter states that the badge and photo identification were presented to both parties, and hands them across so the record reflects that it happened.
- The interpreter is sworn, if the oath is being administered rather than filed.
- The deponent is then sworn, with the oath rendered by the sworn interpreter.
One caution about that last step, because it is widely misstated. California's statutes do not contain a single provision spelling out who administers which oath in what order at a deposition with an interpreter. What is clear is that the deposition is conducted under the supervision of an officer authorized to administer an oath, that the interpreter is sworn under Evidence Code section 751 or has an oath on file, and that section 68561(h) requires the record statement. The sequence above assembles those provisions into ordinary practice. It is not itself a statutory command, and anyone who tells you a single code section dictates the order is overstating.
Remote depositions do not change the obligation
Nothing in section 68561(h) is limited to in-person proceedings. On a remote record the interpreter still states the credential number and the oath status, and still has to present the badge and photo identification to both parties, which on video means holding them to the camera long enough for both sides to see and for the reporter to note it. Build a beat into the agenda for it rather than discovering it mid-transcript. We cover the wider setup separately in our guidance on remote deposition interpreting.
Conduct obligations that sit alongside the statement
California Rule of Court 2.890 governs interpreter professional conduct. It requires an interpreter to accurately and completely represent their certifications, training, and relevant experience, to use their best skills and judgment to interpret accurately without embellishing, omitting, or editing, and to be impartial and disclose any actual or apparent conflict, noting that any condition interfering with objectivity is a conflict. It also bars disclosure of privileged communications between counsel and client, and prohibits the interpreter from giving legal advice. The rule was adopted as rule 984.4 effective January 1, 1999, and amended and renumbered as rule 2.890 effective January 1, 2007. Our article on the interpreter code of ethics covers the professional standards in more depth.
Read together with section 68561(h), the picture is coherent. The interpreter is required to represent their credentials accurately, and required to prove them on the record at the start of a deposition. The statement is the enforcement mechanism for the conduct rule.
What to do when the statement is missing
It usually is. The practical response is not to make a speech, it is to ask a question. A short request on the record, before testimony begins, asking the interpreter to state their credential and number and to present the badge, costs under a minute and produces a transcript that answers the question permanently. Waiting until the deposition is over converts a one-minute item into a dispute about a witness who has already testified.
For the noticing party there is a second reason to care, and it is financial rather than procedural. The recoverability of interpreter fees as costs turns on the interpreter's credential tier, which means an unverified interpreter can quietly convert a recoverable cost into an unrecoverable one. That mechanism is set out in our companion article on who pays for the deposition interpreter.
Sources
California Government Code sections 68560.5, 68561, and 68566, available through California Legislative Information; California Evidence Code sections 750, 751, and 752; California Rule of Court 2.890, published by the Judicial Council of California; Assembly Bill 2370 (Stats. 2014, ch. 424); Senate Bill 1155 (Stats. 2018, ch. 852). Verified against the primary sources in July 2026.
AMS supplies certified and registered court interpreters for depositions across California, and our interpreters are briefed to make the section 68561(h) statement without being asked. To discuss a specific matter, see our deposition interpreting service or request a quote.