In the court reporter and legal news recently, we have seen debate on the use of the stenographic realtime court reporter versus the use of digital audio recording technology. “Judges and Litigators Explain Why They Prefer Realtime Reporters to Recording Devices” covers why stenographic realtime technology is the superior method — and the comments come directly from you, the user of this technology in the judicial arena. In reading this, I hope you find some additional benefits for use of the stenographic realtime reporter of which you can take advantage.
We want this eletter to be as useful to you as possible, so please let us know what topics you would like to see covered in future issues.
Judges and Litigators Explain Why They Prefer Realtime Reporters to Recording Devices
By Jerry Kelley
• I prefer using realtime court reporting (with encryption to ensure privacy), with the spoken word appearing in realtime, in English, on my laptop computer screen for immediate use.
• The judge, counsel, co-counsel, house counsel, client, law clerks, legal assistants, experts, and those in the “war” room can have an instant, up-to-the-minute realtime feed during deposition or court proceedings for immediate use.
• By using realtime, we can know that the proceedings are being recorded. With audio, sometimes we have gone all day before finding out that no record had been made.
• Realtime court reporters can simultaneously digitally record the proceedings. Digital recording devices cannot simultaneously provide realtime feed.
• I can actually see realtime court reporters stop writing when they overhear privileged communication between attorneys and clients. Recording devices just keep recording everything.
• Any errors in the realtime feed can be detected as they happen.
• A live court reporter can and should make sure that speakers speak one at a time and/or repeat anything that would otherwise not show up in the record. A recording device cannot perform that task, and even the best transcripts from recording devices contain [inaudible] and [indiscernible]. Read more >>
Deposition Stipulations or Do You Know What You’re Giving Up?
Please note: this article refers to California law.
We all know about admonitions and we all use them more often than not to start a deposition. Sometimes, dispensing with admonitions with a well-coached witness helps unbalance the carefully prepared testifier, which means there’s a heightened chance of obtaining testimony that more closely resembles the truth. Other times it’s just the opposite.
I was speeding through my standard post-deposition stipulation one day four or five years back, relieving the court reporter of her duties under the Code, etc., when the defense lawyer chimed in with a slight modification.
“I’ll only agree to relieve the court reporter of her obligation to maintain the original,” he said, “otherwise, so agreed.”
Once we were off the record, he told me in a friendly manner, “I don’t think you know what you’re agreeing to when you relieve the court reporters of all their duties under the Code (or the FRCP, if you’re in federal court). They’ve got all kinds of obligations, being officers of the Court and all that.”
The court reporter nodded in agreement and I made a mental note to look into what he was saying at the earliest opportunity. I immediately modified my standard stip, which seemed like a good idea. But it took me until today to really poke around and see what a court reporter’s Code-given duties truly entail. Typical plaintiff lawyer, huh? Read full article >>