Legal Question in Civil Litigation in California

Do you understand what a "binding arbitration hearing" is? I am not sure why there is a court reporter. Who is paying for the court reporter? If this is a genuine binding arbitration hearing you will not be able to move into civil litigation except under limited circumstances, such as the arbitrator failed to disclose a conflict. Your question raises many questions for me which I need to have answered before I can respond clearly. If this is not a genuine binding arbitration and there is an option for civil litigation, yes, any testimony taken under oath may be addressed in a deposition. Be sure to seek personal legal advice with an attorney that can help you understand your situation.

Ms Reisdorph raises good questions and provides good advice. I would add that except for unique situations, you cannot seek judicial review of the merits of an arbitration decision. Nor do the statements made in that proceeding provide grounds for a subsequent, seperate civil proceeding such as defamation - all statements made in the proceeding are privileged, which means they cannot be used as the basis for liability outside of the arbitration itself.

The best advice is: seek the advice of an attorney

Ms. Reisdorph and Mr. Fox seem to be giving you "Microsoft Tech Support Advice." Their answers are perfectly correct, but don't address your question. You asked an evidence question, not a question about the meaning of binding arbitration. The answer is that testimony under oath is not automatically admissible, even if taken in a deposition in the same proceeding. Objections to the testimony based on hearsay and any other grounds remain intact. You also must have an unavailable witness to use much deposition testimony or any transcribed testimony under oath, for most purposes. Otherwise you have to ask the witness the same questions in open court. The use of depositions and any transcribed statements under oath in other proceedings is subject to the same limitations. The only difference is that there are a few uses available in the same proceeding that would not be available in a different proceeding, but the differences are minimal. As for your second question, the transcript from the hearing would be perfectly legitimate fodder for questions in a deposition in a subsequent proceeding if the hearing testimony had relevance to the subsequent proceeding. That is where my colleagues got off track, because it would be unusual for a subsequent proceeding to go forward on a claim or cause of action that was related to a binding arbitration. But, if there was a related claim, that was not barred by the laws governing the finality and privileged nature of arbitration hearings, then the hearing transcript definitely could be used as I have outlined.