Short answer. The officer who took your deposition must promptly notify all parties once it is filed. Section 21 places that duty on the deposition officer, so you do not need to independently monitor the court's own docket to learn the filing has happened, though confirming directly is still a reasonable safeguard if the notice seems delayed.
What the law says
The officer taking the deposition shall give prompt notice of its filing to all the parties.
Rule 23, Section 21 — Notice of filing. Read the full provision →
A short duty with real consequences
The section is a single sentence, but knowing exactly when a deposition was filed can matter for other deadlines in the discovery process — for example, the timing that governs a motion to suppress the deposition under Section 29(f), or in preparing to actually use it at trial. A short provision like this can carry real consequences precisely because so much else in the discovery timeline is directly measured from the moment of filing that it actually triggers. Without a reliable notice of filing, a party could easily lose track of exactly when a deadline tied to the deposition's filing date actually began to run, and miss it entirely as a result.
Who owes the obligation, and to whom
It is specifically the officer who took the deposition, not the party who originally requested it, who must give notice, and that notice must go out to all the parties actually involved in the case — not merely to whichever single party actually noticed or paid for the deposition. This keeps the obligation with a neutral figure rather than leaving it to a party who might have less incentive to promptly and accurately inform an opponent that the deposition has actually been filed with the court. Placing the duty on the officer, rather than on either side to the dispute, means the party who requested the deposition cannot be blamed, or penalized, for a delay in notice that was actually the officer's doing rather than their own.
A practical safeguard
Because the section does not fix a specific number of days for what counts as 'prompt,' a party who has not received notice within a reasonable time, especially as another deadline approaches, should confirm the filing directly with the court or the officer rather than assuming silence means nothing has been filed. Relying purely on receiving notice, without ever checking independently, risks missing a deadline that is running whether or not notice actually arrived on time. Courts generally will not excuse a missed deadline simply because the officer's notice happened to be delayed or never actually reached the party in question. Building in an independent check with the court's own docket, rather than waiting indefinitely on the officer's notice, is the more prudent course whenever a deadline tied to the filing date is drawing close.