No California rule squarely governs interpreting at a remote deposition. Rule of Court 3.672 covers remote appearances and says nothing about interpreters. Code of Civil Procedure section 367.75 does address interpreters, but it governs court proceedings rather than privately noticed depositions. One statutory obligation applies regardless, and beyond that the quality of the record depends on protocol.
What governs, and what does not
It is worth being exact, because vendor material in this area implies rules that do not exist.
- California Rule of Court 3.672 governs remote appearances in civil cases. It defines remote technology as technology that provides for the transmission of video and audio signals or audio signals alone. It does not address interpreters or interpreting at all. The rule was adopted effective January 1, 2022 and amended effective August 4, 2023.
- Code of Civil Procedure section 367.75 governs remote appearances in civil proceedings and does address interpreters, discussed below. It applies to court conferences, hearings, and proceedings.
- A privately noticed deposition is not a court hearing, so neither provision is a direct command about how your deposition interpreter works.
The honest framing matters here. A provider telling you that a rule requires a particular remote interpreting setup at your deposition is either confusing court proceedings with depositions, or is describing its own policy as though it were law.
The obligation that does not change
Government Code section 68561(h) requires the interpreter at a deposition to state their qualifications including certification or registration number, to state that the oath was administered or is on file, and to confirm that the certification badge and photo identification were presented to both parties. Nothing in it is limited to being in the same room.
Remotely this needs a deliberate beat in the agenda. The badge and identification have to be held to the camera long enough for both sides to actually see them and for the reporter to note that it happened. Discovering this obligation halfway through a transcript is avoidable. The full sequence is in our article on what a deposition interpreter must state on the record.
What the June 2026 amendment signals
Section 367.75 was amended by Senate Bill 174 (Stats. 2026, ch. 29), effective June 29, 2026. Two of its interpreter-related features are worth knowing even though the section governs court proceedings rather than your deposition.
- Where a trial is conducted remotely, upon request the court interpreter is to be physically present in the courtroom.
- Courts are to ensure the quality of the technology does not inhibit a court interpreter's ability to provide language access.
Read those together and the legislative view is fairly plain: remote technology is accepted, and interpreting is treated as the part of the proceeding most sensitive to its quality, to the point that physical presence can be requested for a remote trial. Section 367.75 sunsets on January 1, 2032.
For a deposition this is persuasive context rather than binding law, but it is the best available signal of what a California court considers adequate. If you are ever arguing about whether a remote setup was good enough for interpreted testimony, that standard is a more useful reference point than a vendor's marketing.
The Judicial Council guidance
The Judicial Council of California publishes Recommended Guidelines and Minimum Specifications for Video Remote Interpreting for spoken language interpreted events, and separate guidelines for ASL-interpreted events. They are guidance rather than rules, and they are written for court settings. They are worth reading before designing a remote deposition protocol, but they do not create obligations for a private deposition and should not be cited as though they do.
The working protocol
Since protocol rather than rule is what protects the record, here is what actually matters, in the order it tends to go wrong.
Audio comes first
Interpreting is an audio task before it is a video task. An interpreter can work with imperfect video and cannot work with imperfect audio. Insist that the deponent uses a headset rather than a laptop microphone, because a laptop microphone in a room with a speakerphone produces exactly the echo that makes accurate rendering impossible. Test the deponent's audio specifically, not just the attorneys'.
Interpreter visibility
The interpreter needs to see the deponent, and the deponent needs to see the interpreter. Pin both windows for the duration rather than relying on active-speaker view, which will swap away from the deponent every time an attorney clears their throat.
One voice at a time
Consecutive rendering of sworn testimony depends on turn-taking, and remote platforms punish overlap harder than a conference room does. State the protocol on the record at the start: question, pause, interpretation, answer, pause, interpretation. Our article on consecutive and simultaneous mode at a deposition explains why the mode is not a preference.
Exhibits
Screen-shared exhibits in a language the deponent does not read are the single most common remote failure. Decide in advance whether an exhibit will be sight translated aloud or whether a written certified translation is needed, and send exhibits to the interpreter ahead of time where the case permits. Deciding this while everyone waits is how a deposition loses forty minutes.
A stated failure procedure
Agree on the record what happens when audio degrades mid-answer: the interpreter says so immediately, the question is re-put, and the transcript reflects the interruption. Without an agreed procedure, an interpreter facing degraded audio has to choose between guessing and interrupting, and guessing is how inaccurate testimony enters a record that looks clean.
Where the interpreter should physically be
A remote deposition is not one arrangement, it is several, and they behave differently. The deponent may be alone at home with the interpreter also remote. The deponent may be at their attorney's office with the interpreter in the room and everyone else remote. Or every participant may be in a different place.
The arrangement that consistently works best is the interpreter in the same room as the deponent, with counsel remote. It restores the two things video takes away: clean audio between the two people who most need it, and the visual cues that let an interpreter tell the difference between a pause for thought and a failure to understand. It is also the arrangement that most closely matches what section 367.75 contemplates for remote trials, where the court interpreter can be requested to be physically present.
The arrangement that works least well is a deponent alone on a phone, using a laptop microphone in a room with other people. If that is what is proposed, it is worth raising before the date rather than discovering it on the record.
Check interpreters and platform channels
Opposing counsel is entitled to bring their own interpreter to monitor the rendering. This is normal and, handled properly, useful: a check interpreter who raises a genuine issue early prevents a dispute about the transcript later. What causes trouble is an unannounced check interpreter interjecting without a protocol.
Agree the mechanism at the start and put it on the record: the check interpreter raises a concern to counsel, counsel states it on the record, the two interpreters confer, and the agreed rendering is stated. That takes a minute and produces a clean record. The alternative, two interpreters correcting each other in real time over a video link, produces a transcript nobody can use.
A note on platform interpretation channels. Zoom and Teams both offer dedicated language channels designed for simultaneous interpreting, where listeners select a language feed. They are genuinely useful for the simultaneous rendering provided to a party for colloquy and objections. They are not the right tool for the consecutive rendering of sworn testimony, which needs to be audible to everyone and captured by the reporter on the main record. Using the interpretation channel for testimony is a reliable way to end up with testimony that is not fully on the record.
When to insist on in person
Remote works well for a great deal of deposition work. It works less well as the proceeding gets longer, the exhibits get denser, the language gets rarer, or the testimony gets more technical. Where the matter is high value and the testimony is the case, the argument for putting the interpreter in the room is straightforward, and section 367.75 shows the Legislature reaching the same conclusion for remote trials.
For the wider question of when video remote interpreting is and is not appropriate across settings, see our article on video remote interpreting.
Sources
California Code of Civil Procedure section 367.75 as amended by Senate Bill 174 (Stats. 2026, ch. 29), effective June 29, 2026, available through California Legislative Information; California Rule of Court 3.672, adopted effective January 1, 2022 and amended effective August 4, 2023, published by the Judicial Council of California; California Government Code section 68561; Judicial Council Recommended Guidelines and Minimum Specifications for Video Remote Interpreting. Verified against the primary sources in July 2026.
AMS covers remote depositions on Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Webex, and the major deposition platforms, and briefs interpreters on the record statement and the turn-taking protocol before the assignment. See our deposition interpreting service.