copy of transcript for R&S

Today an attorney challenged me, saying I could not refuse to mail a copy of the transcript to the deponent for reading and signing when no copy purchase has been made.  In this particular instance, the attorney making the challenge was not representing the deponent.  She basically said I could not, "under the rules" require a deponent to take time out to travel to an agency office to sit down and review a transcript.  The issue was left as we agree to disagree, but I wanted to cite some case examples where this has been the issue...any help?

Hi, Curtis!

Although I cannot help you specifically (I'm an official, rarely do depo work), it may help others if you can tell us what state you're located in, as some states have very specific rules and laws concerning deposition proceedings.

Thanks!

Why is it your responsibility to prove that you're right and the attorney's wrong?  Put the onus on the attorney to show YOU the "rule" he/she's referring to.  (And i'm going to bet that if said "rule" is produced, it's going to say something to the effect of "the reporter must 'make the transcript available' to the witness for read/sing, with "making it available"not defined.  having it "available" for the witness in your office, or a friendly competitor's conveniently located office, if yours is not, qualifies in every instance I've ever encountered/heard of.

Hi, Sarah;  The depo took place in Maryland.  I've been reporting for years and years, in several different states.  While attorneys have tried creative ways to get free transcripts, go 'round the process, etc., I've never had an attorney claim that I was not allowed to refuse to mail a transcript to a deponent for R&S.  Our discussion ended with my saying, in effect, "Well, Ms. Attorney, we're just butting heads on the topic.  However, I can assure you no transcript will be mailed to the deponent's home for reading and signing."  She went on to claim that if my position were challenged in court, I would lose.  Nothing is going to court, but I just wanted to send this person some info.  I'm sure there have been articles written on it in the JCR before...anyhoo, that's the follow-up.

Curtis.

What about sending a condensed transcript with just the testimony, i.e., no front pages, certification page, no colloquy, and no exhibits?

Lisa

Or print it front and back (duplex)?

What I've done in these circumstances (or similar circumstances) is I've e-mailed a PDF that is not printable.  That makes it easiest for me and I am assured they cannot "steal" a tript from me.

I can't fight about this stuff, so I sometimes take the easiest path around it.  But I'm, frankly, quite surprised that an attorney at this deposition who did NOT represent the deponent would take it upon herself to represent him and advise him about his rights.  Quite surprised indeed.

Mitz

I don't think nonprintable pdfs or condensed pdfs really solve anything.   You've still given them the transcript, regardless of the form.  Unfortunately, I can't think of a solution, except for the reporter to stick to his or her guns - i.e., they don't have to provide a transcript to anyone who is not going to pay for it, unless the deponent is willing to go to an agency's office and do the reading and signing.

Just my opinion.

Marie Splane

... unless the deponent is willing to go to an agency's office and do the reading and signing.

I think you've nailed it with that, Marie.  I don't think there are any rules that say we have to provide the transcript let alone a free one. 

Lillian

I hear ya, Marie.  But this issue comes up for me about once a year, if even that.  I don't have an office per se (office out of my home), and I think each situation is dependent upon whether it appears someone is trying to steal a transcript from you or it's really a legit request to read and sign.

I'm working on a case right now that I reported depositions about 100 miles away, and the witnesses were not parties to the action, were unrepresented, and I will probably send them PDF transcripts to read and sign.  I don't know how I can have them come 100 miles to read and sign, and I sure as heck am not going to travel that 100 miles myself to afford them that opportunity.  I find it the lesser of the evils available to me and the most reasonable.  It costs me nothing, too, which is better than actually printing a hard copy of the tript and having to mail it.

In my "practice" in Minnesota I have virtually no problem with attorneys attempting to steal transcripts.  It is extremely rare.  If I felt that was happening, I would certainly go to the wall with making them come to my office (the courthouse or whatever; I'd never have them come to my house -- ewwwwwe) to read and sign, and in the past when I've done that, they've never followed through and actually called to make the appointment.  If they were a party, yeah, you bet, they'd never get a free copy.  Otherwise, having an unprintable PDF might work in the original poster's situation and that is why I suggested it.

Mitz

We used to have the same problem crop up back when we had a firm in Georgia.  If you look at the wording of the right to read and sign in either the Federal Rules or most state statutes (since they for the most part mimic the Federal Rules) it says, " If requested by the deponent or a party before completion of the deposition, the deponent shall have 30 days after being notified by the officer that the transcript or recording is available in which to review the transcript or recording and, if there are changes in form or substance, to sign a statement reciting such changes and the reasons given by the deponent for making them."  It doesn't say you have to send it to them, you have to make it available.

Many years ago the issue came up in federal court in Georgia and a judge wrote in an unpublished, "When the testimony is fully transcribed, the deposition shall be submitted to the witness for examination (signature).' Rule 30(E) nowhere specifies the manner in which (or where) the transcript must be "submitted" to plaintiff. Additionally the case law does not require, contrary to the plaintiff's contention, that the transcript be presented to the plaintiff at his counsel's office in order to be "submitted" in compliance with Rule 30(E). Hence, the Court finds that the court reporter has adequately "submitted" the transcript to the plaintiff under Rule 30(E), and consequently denies the plaintiff's motion."

That case occurred eons ago and the judge was Robert L. Vining, Jr., and the case was Horace Johnson v. Alcan Aluminum Corporation.

Anyway, we used to cite Judge Vining's ruling and nobody wanted to cross his opinion and we didn't have much trouble after that.

Mike Brentano

That's very helpful info, Mike.  Thank you!

Lillian