Has anyone ever asked you for a copy of any audio the court reporter may have used in their production
transcripts?
It is my understanding most have an audio avail through their software to aid in preparing their
transcripts. It would not be available without their software.
Would anyone consider this disclosable under GR 31?
My thought is that it belongs to the reporter and is not the property of the court, even if stored at the
Clerk’s office as part of their notes on cd. No one can get copies of the court reporter notes either..
thoughts?
Responses:
Benton: We do not have audio available on criminal matters.
Chelan: I believe our position would also be that it belongs to the reporter. I don’t think they even
retain the recordings once the transcript is completed. And even if they could get the notes, I don’t
think they could read them.
Clark: Back in the days when I had reporters it was considered not to be part of the court record.
Jefferson: We don’t have court reporters but instead the JAVS audio and video in our courtroom.
King: Although our new collective bargaining agreement with the court reporters require that they file
the audio record with the clerk’s office, and we consider it our property, our current interpretation of
GR 31 would not require that we provide it to a requestor. We would, however, need to provide a
transcript prepared via use of the audio record , if requested and paid for. In King County, while the
court reporters are required to file the audio with the Clerk’s Office if they use it, not all court reporters
use an audio backup. We would probably never know if a court reporter only relied upon their audio
backup to produce a privately prepared transcript.
Kittitas: Does not provide audio recording of hearings to anyone without a court order releasing the
audio. Parties may come and listen to the audio.
Lincoln: We have not had this issue come up before.
Pierce: We just had the same request (for the audio tapes) and we turned the requester down. I
suspect we will be hearing more on this topic.
Snohomish: I feel that the information on the audio kept by the Court Reporters belongs to them and
not the court and it would not be disclosed under GR 31 as it is not a court record. It has come up and
the response is that it is the court reporters equipment.
Thurston: I have had these requests in the past and declined for the reasons you list below. The
reporters own their software and equipment and the audio is not the Court’s to disclose. Moreover,
these audio recordings are not the official record of the court. I would not disclose under GR31. I’ve
had one requester claim that since their equipment is plugged into electric sockets provided by the
county that means these records are public….
A court reporter disclosed to a litigant starting an appeal that his particular steno machine had the option
to record. The litigant asked for a copy of the recording and the reporter refused. The litigant came to me
and I took the position that (1) Court Reporter equipment is not owned by the Court so we cannot direct
the reporter to make available something that is not part of the official record; (2) the official transcript is
the one produced by the reporter and not any back-up such as the Realtime script or any recording. The
litigant than filed a PRA request which I denied. The requester didn't take it any further.
Our reporter notes are stored in a network file accessible only by the judges and reporters. The Clerk
occasionally asks the reporters to burn these notes to disks. So far, we have declined to do so offering
instead to provide the Clerk with access to the drive for archiving purposes. Reporters are required to
keep back-ups of the transcripts at their own cost.
Our struggle has been with recordings made with FTRGold. Anyone may purchase a disk with the audio
of any hearing recorded. We are discussing and sort of have implemented a policy that only an official
court reporter can produce transcripts for review/revision or appellate purposes.
Additional info and
Ethics opinion on report on audio files
COPE Updates General Guidelines for
Backup Audio Material
NCRA's Code of Professional Ethics General Guidelines has been modified to include a new
section dealing with Backup Audio Material. The new section reads as follows:
Section VII: Backup Audio Media
Due to the complexities that may arise from the use of different forms of backup audio media,
whether analog or digital, NCRA has developed guidelines to aid the court reporter in the use of
this technology.
The latest innovation involves technology that has been developed for computer-aided
translation (CAT) software, which allows for the simultaneous digital audio recording of judicial
proceedings, often referred to as “audio synchronization,” and more commonly known as
“backup audio media.”
When using any backup audio medium, the court reporter must comply with any applicable
local, state and federal rules and/or laws to ensure the integrity of the record. The court
reporter’s duties and responsibilities do not change regarding preservation of the official record
and in any respect with regard to: reading back from the stenographic notes (no playback of the
recording in lieu of readback); interrupting the proceedings due to the speed of the testimony,
unintelligible, and/or simultaneous speakers, etc.
Judicial court reporters frequently use the term “work product” when referring to their backup
recordings. “Work product” may be defined as a backup recording made by a court reporter at
their discretion, and not otherwise ordered for preservation by any federal, state or local law
and/or rule, and is the personal property of the court reporter. There is no public entitlement to
these recordings.
The following guidelines address the release of backup audio media.
A. Guidelines for Providing Backup Audio Media at the Request of an Attorney or Party to a
Proceeding
1. If the backup audio media is made available to any party in a case, it is the responsibility of the
reporter to ensure that no confidential or off-the-record discussions are contained in the
released recording.
2. A reporting firm/agency may not require that a reporter produce the backup audio media (unless
ordered to do so by a court).
3. If the reporter decides to release the backup audio media, the reporter shall release a copy and
not the original (unless ordered otherwise by a court).
4. If the reporter makes available a copy of the backup audio media to one party, the same offer
must be made to the other party(ies) to the proceeding.
5. Reporters should check all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations to ensure
that creating a backup audio media is in compliance with those laws, rules and regulations.
6. If a reporter uses backup audio media, it should be preserved upon request by any party to the
proceeding for the same period of time for which the reporter’s notes are preserved. The
reporter may request that the party seek a court order before making it available.
B. Guidelines for Offering Backup Audio Media to Parties as a Value-Added Service
1. If the reporter or member offers backup audio media as a value-added service, all parties should
be advised prior to the start of the proceeding.
2. If the backup audio media is provided as a value-added service, it is the responsibility of the
reporter to ensure that such sound recording technique does not distort the oral proceedings
and that no confidential or off-the-record discussions are contained in the released recording.
3. If a reporter or member offers backup audio media as a value-added service, the reporter shall
provide a copy to the requesting parties and preserve the original.
4. If the reporter or member makes available a copy of the backup audio media to one party, the
same offer must be made to the other party(ies) to the proceeding.
5. Reporters and members should check all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and
regulations to ensure that creating a backup audio media is in compliance with those laws, rules
and regulations.
To learn more about NCRA's Code of Professional Ethics, or read the General Guidelines in
their entirety, please visit the " target="_blank">COPE area of the NCRA Web Site.
An Attorney Requests a Copy of a Reporter's
Backup Audio Media
(Originally written, 2000; Revised, 2006)
Statement of Facts
The NCRA Board of Directors has requested an opinion from the Committee on Professional
Ethics regarding ethics issues involved in the following scenario: While making the official
record, a reporter made an audio backup recording of a proceeding for use by the reporter only
while making the transcript. During a break in the proceeding, an attorney requests a copy of the
reporter’s backup audio media.
Discussion
It is becoming increasingly common for persons present during the making of an official record
to request a copy of the reporter’s backup audio media for their own use. The Committee on
Professional Ethics believes that the decision of whether or not to make an audio backup
recording of a proceeding is the personal choice of the reporter.
The Committee finds the rationale of the Illinois case, Emmel v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of
Chicago Inc., 904 F.Supp.723,753, to be dispositive. The U.S. District Court determined that
“backup tapes made by court reporters for their own convenience and not otherwise required by
28 U.S.C. 753 are the personal property of the court reporters. There is no public entitlement to
these recordings.”
Following this rationale, the Committee concludes that, absent a court order to do so, there is no
ethical obligation for a reporter to provide a copy of the backup audio media to any person
requesting same or even to disclose to those present that a backup audio recording is being
made. A reporter must comply with any applicable state or federal requirement that a reporter
preserve such backup audio media once the reporter no longer needs it for use while making the
transcript.
Nonetheless, if a reporter elects to give a person a copy of the backup audio media, the following
ethical obligations apply:
First, before making the decision to provide all parties with a copy of the backup audio media,
the reporter should be cautioned that doing so may cause the reporter to be in violation of
Provision No. 4 of the Code which requires that the reporter preserve the confidentiality and
ensure the security of the information entrusted to the Member because the backup audio media
may contain inadvertent comments, off-the-record discussions, or attorney-client privileged
communications that should not be released or disclosed. If a reporter decides to provide copies
of the backup audio media, the reporter is obligated to ensure that in doing so, he or she is not
disclosing off-the-record discussions or attorney-client privileged communications.
Additionally, if a reporter decides to provide a copy of the backup audio media, the reporter
should provide the requesting party with a copy of the media and the reporter should keep the
original. This satisfies the reporter’s obligation under Provision No. 4 of the Code to preserve
the confidentiality of the information entrusted to a Member because if there is a dispute over the
backup or an accusation that it has been altered, the reporter may produce the original to settle
the dispute. The only exception to this is if a court orders the reporter to provide the original
media. In that case, the reporter must keep a copy.
Second, Provision No. 1 of the Code of Professional Ethics, which states that a Member shall “be
fair and impartial toward each participant in all aspects of reported proceedings, and always offer
to provide comparable services to all parties in a proceeding,” requires that the reporter offer to
provide a copy of the media to all other parties. Failure to do so would be a violation of Code
Provision No. 1 and also of Provision No. 9, which requires Members to maintain the integrity of
the reporting profession.
Conclusion
The Committee has determined that absent a court order to do so, the NCRA Code of
Professional Ethics does not require that a reporter provide a copy of any backup audio media
that the reporter uses to make the official transcript of a proceeding. However, Provision No. 1
of the Code requires that if the reporter chooses to give a copy to a requesting party, the reporter
must offer to do so for all parties to the proceeding. Provision No. 4 also requires that the
reporter maintain the original backup audio media and provide only a copy to any or all
requesting parties. Finally, the Committee cautions that releasing copies of the media may result
in a violation of Provision No. 4 of the Code if the media contains inadvertent, off-the-record or
privileged information that should not have been released or disclosed.
THIS PUBLIC ADVISORY OPINION REFLECTS THE STATUS OF THE LAW IN MOST
JURISDICTIONS. MEMBERS ARE REQUIRED TO CONFORM TO THE ACCEPTED
PRACTICES SET FORTH IN THIS PUBLIC ADVISORY OPINION TO THE EXTENT
THAT SUCH PRACTICES ARE CONSISTENT WITH THEIR OWN APPLICABLE STATE
AND LOCAL LAWS, RULES AND REGULATIONS.
A last bit of information regarding audio files. It appears there is discussion withing the court reporter
community about the affect of Gr 31.1 on the issue of audio backups.
>>> Kathy Beehler 6/5/2013 2:45 PM >>>
I had heard about this, but since you issued a question, I thought I'd forward it.
>>> "WCRA" <phyllis@centralcourtreporting.com> 6/5/2013 1:48 PM >>>
June 5, 2013 Update
Table of
Contents
WCRA SUPPORTS OFFICIALS!
(letter reprinted with permission)
Pierce County Judges
Rule
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE
STATE OF WASHINGTON
FOR PIERCE COUNTY
Fall Convention
DOL Rule Changes
WCRA
ANNOUNCES
MEMBER
INSURANCE
BENEFITS
TO BE
AVAILABLE
OCTOBER
2013!
Angela McDougall, Reporter
DEPARTMENT 9
(253)798-3655
COUNTY-CITY BUILDING
930 TACOMA AVENUE SOUTH
Room 334
TACOMA, WA 98402-2108
May 28, 2013
Re: Release of Audio Files
Dear Phyllis and Members of WCRA,
On behalf of the Pierce County Official Court Reporters, I
wish to extend our most heartfelt thank you for your
assistance in gathering information to present to the judges
to convince them not to order us to release our audio files
when requested under the Public Disclosure Act. It is so
impressive what we can do as a group as opposed to
individually. The judges did agree we do not fall under the
Public Disclosure Act. There is an upcoming rule change
which might raise the issue again. I will keep the
information we gathered and present it again if necessary.
Our Most Sincere Thanks,
Angela McDougall
Pierce County Managing Reporter
_____________________________________________
FALL CONVENTION
Save the date!
SEPTEMBER 13, 14, 15
Icicle Inn, Leavenworth, Washington
BOSTON STRANGLER CASE
COURT PORTER & PUBLISHED
AUTHOR TELLS ALL!
Key Note Speaker
DOL STAKEHOLDERS
MEETING PROPOSED RULE
CHANGES
Thursday, June 6, 2013
2:00 p.m.
Location:
Department of Licensing
Conference Room 209
405 Black Lake Blvd SW
Olympia Washington
98502
Directions
Santo J. Aurelio, Ed.D., a former
official court reporter for 39 years,
earned bachelor's and master's
degrees from Harvard University, and a
doctorate in education from Boston
University. Dr. Aurelio is a Visiting
Professor at colleges in the Boston area, where he
teaches a variety of subjects, but mainly English
grammar and medicolegal terminology.
Dr. Aurelio will be holding two seminars, the first
one being one in which you will learn all about his
most fascinating case, the Boston Strangler Case,
which includes in-depth information about Albert
DeSalvo (who confessed), F. Lee Bailey (his
attorney), Peter Hurkos (the Dutch psychic who
"assisted"), George Nassar (whom many police
officials believe is the "real" Strangler), and all of the
other principals.
Dr. Aurelio is also a published author of his English
and grammar reference book, How to Say It and
Write It Correctly Now.
We have a few other interesting speakers slated as
well! We also have concurrent seminars slated for
SOFTWARE SUNDAY, where you your software
vendors will have hands-on software tips and latest
technology demonstrations!
Contact Us
WCRA
917 Triple Crown Way,
Ste 200
Yakima, WA 98908
425.749.1931 (tel.)
email
pclykken@gmail.com
WCRA leaders will be attending the
upcoming DOL Stakeholders Meeting
and will be seeking implementation of
the below referenced rule changes:
1) Amend CCR WAC 308-14-130 (1) to add language
of WA CR 28 (c) and (d).
(1) Offer arrangements on a case concerning court reporting
services or fees to all parties on equal terms.
DISCOUNT AVAILABLE TO
WCRA MEMBERS ONLY
(a) Disqualification for Interest.
No deposition shall be taken before a person
who is a relative or employee or attorney or
counsel of the parties, or is a relative or
employee of such attorney or counsel,
or is financially interested in the action.
(b) Equal Terms Required. Any
arrangement concerning court reporting
services or fees in a case shall be offered
to all parties on equal terms. This rule
applies to any arrangement or agreement
between the person before whom a deposition
is taken or a court reporting firm,
consortium or other organization providing a
court reporter, and any party or any person
arranging or paying for court reporting
services in the case, including any
attorney, law firm, person or entity with a
financial interest in the outcome of the
litigation, or person or entity paying for
court reporting services in the case
2) Add language of Federal Judiciary Policy 510.40.10
language to CCR WAC 308-14-130 (9).
(9) Preserve the confidentiality of all information
obtained during a proceeding and take all steps necessary
to ensure its security. Backup tapes made by court
Membership
Renewals are
due JUNE 30,
2013
Please Support
WCRA and
renew NOW!
Your
Membership
will be Valid
Through June
30, 2014!
reporters for their own convenience are the
personal property of the court reporter.
There is no public entitlement to these
recordings, or to backup tapes made for the
convenience of the court.
3) Amend the language to current CCR WAC 308-14130 (12) to add payment language that adds WA CR
30(e)(f)(2)’s payment language to our existing
standards and states:
(12) Upon payment of reasonable charges therefor,
supply certified copies of transcripts to any involved party,
upon appropriate request.
Do You Need Affordable Insurance?
TO BE ANNOUNCED DURING WCRA
FALL CONVENTION
SEPTEMBER 13, 14, 15, 2013
MEMBER BENEFITS COMING JUST IN
TIME FOR THE AFFORDABLE
HEALTHCARE ACT!!
1) Discounts for Dental and Vision Insurance, Affordable
Healthcare Insurance
2) Discount for Disability Insurance and Life Insurance
3) Discounts for E & O Insurance
This message was sent to beehlek@co.thurston.wa.us from:
Email Marketing
by
Washington Court Reporters Association | WCRA 917 Triple Crown Way, Ste 200 | Yakima, WA 98908
Manage Your Subscription
| Forward To a Friend
This e-mail has been sent to everyone in the AWSCA@LISTSERV.COURTS.WA.GOV mailing list. To reply
to the sender, click Reply. To reply to the sender and the mailing list, click Reply All.
You can remove yourself from this mailing list at any time by sending a "SIGNOFF AWSCA" command to
LISTSERV@LISTSERV.COURTS.WA.GOV