Our reporters have been serving many of your firms for over twenty years and collectively they have transcribed 377,839 depositions in 7,691 different cities nationwide – what an accomplishment!
What follows is a recent letter from one of our reporters which echoes feedback from many of our reporters. I share this with you so you can see how rewarding it is for our reporters to serve you in the court reporting industry through our agency.
Dear Sheila and Atkinson-Baker Court Reporters:
I wanted to tell you, Sheila, that I absolutely love Atkinson-Baker the company, for reasons I tend to forget — until I happen to work for another company! It’s only when I have to do an assignment for another agency (hopefully rarely) that I really see the commitment of Atkinson-Baker to the working reporter, just all those little things that really add up big when comparing reporter agencies.
Whenever I have the opportunity, I put in a good word for Atkinson-Baker strictly for my own selfish reasons because I wish more attorneys would use Atkinson-Baker exclusively!
I’m glad to see that Atkinson-Baker is not merging into a humongous conglomeration like the rest of them. Your leadership will hopefully stay intact as long as I have the privilege of working for Atkinson-Baker.
With Best Regards,
Debbie Mayer, RPR CRR CRP
Our reporters are loyal and continue to be of the highest quality in the nation. Working for you gives them the drive to diligently work at improving their craft and for that, we thank you!
Evidence Authentication: Web Site Content
Electronic evidence presents unique authentication challenges. What are the specific issues for web site contents?
Judge Grimm on Evidence
In his memorandum opinion in Lorraine v. Markel Am. Ins. Co., 241 F.R.D. 534 (D. Md. 2007), Magistrate Judge Grimm remarks that “considering the significant costs associated with discovery of ESI, it makes little sense to go to all the bother and expense to get electronic information only to have it excluded from evidence or rejected from consideration during summary judgment because the proponent cannot lay a sufficient foundation to get it admitted.”
In this article we investigate ways to authenticate and bring into evidence web site contents, and potentially challenge the same.
In usual requests for production, you have to rely on the opposing party to follow the correct protocol and to produce all relevant ESI. To verify or challenge the protocol, you need to substantiate the claim, pointing out the ESI that has not been produced. But how can one point to the information if it has not been produced? We seem to have a vicious circle.
There is a way, however, and this way includes correctly crafted requests for metadata production. The request needs to be specific enough, so that it is not considered a fishing expedition.
Here are some actual questions from lawyers and exchanges with witnesses that took place in the court room:Q: “Now doctor, isn’t it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn’t know about it until the next morning?”
Q: “Were you present when your picture was taken?”
Q: “Was it you or your younger brother who was killed in the war?”
Q: “How far apart were the vehicles at the time of the collision?”
Q: “How was your first marriage terminated?”
A: “By death.”
Q: “And by whose death was it terminated?”
Q: “Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?”