California Official Court Reporters Association 

SUMMARY

REPORTING OF THE RECORD TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT

The RRTF’s Final Report is available on the Judicial Council’s website at www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courtadmin/jc/tflists/reprecord.htm.

 

1. Original Charge: To evaluate and make recommendations to the Judicial Council regarding, but not limited to, the following issues relating to reporting of the record within California:

 

NOTE: Owing to time constraints, the task force was not able to address the third charge, “Expanded use of court reporters’ evidence and presentation technology.”

 

2. COCRA’s Voting Record: As a point of reference, COCRA was granted a seat on the RRTF. The Judicial Council did not create a slot for labor representatives on the RRTF, despite the fact that the RRTF's charge contained many labor-related issues. Therefore, COCRA early on asked the task force to take up the structural aspects of its charge apart from the labor-related aspects, which inevitably would have to be resolved with the court reporter unions. This request was denied.

 

Similarly, COCRA requested that last year's proposed ER expansion/transcript takeover and this year's Court Reporter Protection Act not be incorporated into the RRTF's agenda. These requests also were denied.

Thereafter, in order to move forward with necessary reforms, yet preserve the labor issues, COCRA was often in the position of working to develop a recommendation, only to have to vote against it in the end, because it contained a labor-related component. COCRA’s concern in most cases was related to compensation.

COCRA’s rep was the only court reporter member of the task force whose vote reflected these labor-related concerns. Consistent with these concerns, COCRA’s rep voted to oppose various recommendations where noted in Section 3-V subsections D and E of this report.

The Judicial Council eventually will have to reconcile with labor and others before acting on many of the RRTF recommendations. COCRA hopes to work through these issues in a manner that will facilitate necessary reforms in the record-making process of our courts, yet ensure that such reforms do not result in the reduction of compensation to court reporters.

 

3. Discussion of the RRTF’s Charge

 

I. Primary Focus: The task force’s primary focus was the in-dept examination of the memorialization of the oral proceedings and its integration with other elements of the official court record both now and in the future.

 

II. Definition of “the Record”: For the purposes of addressing the primary focus of the task force, the record is defined as the complete, accurate, certified verbatim memorialization of oral proceedings before the court. By this definition the word “record” encompasses only those memorializations that are certified by a reporter as accurate.

 

III. Process and Development of Recommendations: After examining and evaluating a broad body of information, the task force explored solutions to the issues raised and attempted to arrive at its recommendations by consensus. As the task force addressed more issues, it found that full consensus could not always be achieved. In such instances, a vote was taken, and if a recommendation was approved by the majority, it was deemed to have passed.

 

IV. Considerations Addressed by Recommendations:

 

• Reduced costs to the courts provided by electronic processing, distribution and storage of transcripts and reporters’ notes.

• Recognition of advances in technology moving toward “paperless” courts.

• Improved access for users provided by online systems for ordering new transcripts and locating reporters’ notes/old transcripts.

• Increased user flexibility in working with electronic transcripts.

• Recognition of ecological responsibility by reducing paper waste.

 

V. Recommendations:

 

A. Delivery, Maintenance, and Storage

• Adopt the following overarching standards for the delivery, maintenance, and storage of electronic transcripts, master index volumes, and reporters’ notes:

a. Delivery: The transcript, master index volume, and reporter’s notes must be in a form that can be transmitted electronically. The electronic transmission must be secure, timely, and cost-effective.

b. Maintenance and Storage: The electronic transcript, master index volume, and reporter’s notes must be maintained and stored in a manner that is secure, accessible to authorized persons, and cost-effective.

 

2. Establish a secure Web-based system for the delivery, maintenance, and storage of the electronic transcript, master index volume, and reporter’s notes, which will provide for a “mirror image” printout of the electronic transcript.

 

3. Conduct feasibility studies, pilot projects, and post-project evaluations for the delivery, maintenance, and storage of the electronic transcript, master index volume, and reporter’s notes.

 

• Existing Statutory/Regulatory Provisions Affected by These Recommendations:

• Code of Civil Procedure Sections 269, 271, 274a

• Government Code Sections 69950, 69954, 69955

• Penal Code Sections 190.8, 190.9, 869, 870, 871.5, 938.1, 938.3, 1539

• Welfare and Institutions Code Sections 347, 677

• California Rules of Court, rules 4, 4.162, 9, 12.5, 31.2, 32, 32.1, 34.1, 34.2, 35, 35.1, 35.2, 39.1A, 39.1B, 39.4, 39.5, 40, 44, 59, 69, 124, 125, 129, 136, 184, 200.1, 243.2, 4.162 (Criminal), 2073, 2073.5

• California Code of Regulations, Title 16, Section 2473

 

• Stenographic Court Reporting Systems

 

• Ensure the use of court reporting equipment and software capable of complying with the following:

• Any interim electronic transcript format recommendations for the implementation of the online registration and certification pilot project; and

• The final electronic transcript format recommendations arrived at upon the completion of the above pilot project for the statewide transition to online registration and certification.

 

2. Ensure the use of court reporting equipment and software capable of producing electronic transcripts and notes. Reporters may continue to use the equipment and software of their choice, as long as these are able to comply with the task force’s recommendations and meet the needs of the courts.

 

3. Existing Statutory/Regulatory Provisions Affected by These Recommendations:

• California Rule of Court, rule 980.6 (specifications for electronic recording equipment.)

 

• Uniformity of the Transcript

• Establish a uniform format for paper and electronic transcripts of court proceedings per the following specifications.

 

• Specifications for Standardized Transcript Format are posted online at

www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courtadmin/jc/tflists/reprecord.htm.

 

• Existing Statutory/Regulatory Provisions Affected by These Recommendations:

• Rules of Court, rules 4, 9

• California Code of Regulations, Title 16, Section 2473

 

• Word Rates and Responsibility for Electronic Transcripts (COCRA’s rep voted to oppose these recommendations.)

 

• Take the following actions concerning word rates:

• For payment purposes, seek the establishment of a standard word rate (hereafter “basic word rate”) for (1) all electronic transcripts purchased by the court and (2) all electronic transcripts of criminal and juvenile proceedings, irrespective of purchaser;

• Ensure that the basic word rate results in overall net revenue neutrality for reporters and overall net expenditure neutrality for the courts; and

• For all electronic transcripts other than those compensated at the basic word rate, seek the establishment of an adjusted word rate (hereafter “adjusted word rate”) that is 18 percent above the basic word rate.

 

• Ensure the use of a single statewide software program to count the number of words in all electronic transcripts of court proceedings.

 

3. Establish procedures through which upon transmission and payment to the reporter the court assumes control of and responsibility for the electronic transcript.

 

• Existing Statutory/Regulatory Provisions Affected by These Recommendations:

• Government Code Sections 69950, 69954

• California Rules of Court, rule 4.162

• California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Sections 1021.1, 1021.8

 

E. Alternative Methods of Producing the Electronic (COCRA’s rep voted to oppose these recommendations.)

 

(Note: The original charge for this section was to evaluate and make recommendations regarding the shortage of qualified court reporters, including such issues as recruitment, retention, and the consequent need to develop criteria for the use of alternative methods of reporting and maintaining the record.)

 

1. Ensure that all paper and electronic transcripts produced from nonstenographic reporting methods and transmitted to the courts comply with all recommendations contained in this report.

 

(Note: The Final Report contains the text of the agreement titled “Agreement – Use of Nonstenographic Methods for Reporting of the Record, February 6, 2004 {otherwise dubbed by CCRA the “Court Reporter Protection Act” [CRPA]} but makes no recommendation to the Judicial Council about the Agreement.)

 

2. Existing Statutory/Regulatory Provisions Affected by These Recommendations:

• Code of Civil Procedure Sections 269, 273, 274a, 437(c), 651, 660, 914, 2093, 1953.06

• Evidence Code Sections 1042, 1062

• Family Code Sections 2451, 7895, 9005

• Government Code Sections 68086, 68525, 69941, 69942, 69944, 69946, 69952, 69953, 69955, 69956, 69957, 70137, 70141.11

• Penal Code Section 704, 817, 870, 871.5, 1127

• California Rules of Court, rules 4, 4.162, 12, 31, 31.1, 31.2, 32, 32.1, 34.1, 35, 39.1A, 39.4, 39.8, 187.5, 890, 891, 980.5, 980.6

 

• Statewide Training for Court Reporters

 

• Develop and implement a comprehensive curriculum for the training of official court reporters through the assistance of the Administrative Office of the Courts’ Education Division.

 

• Transcripts for Civil Appeals

 

• Implement the following changes concerning paper transcripts for civil appeals:

• Amend the California Rules of Court so that the term “certified transcript” shall include either a certified original or a printout that has been certified as an accurate duplicate of the original.

• Amend the California Rules of Court to require the reporter to certify each printout of the transcript as an accurate duplicate of the original.

• Amend rules 4 and 9 of the Appellate Rules of the California Rules of Court to clarify and simplify the process in which a designated paper transcript is prepared for filing to the appellate court. At the request of the Judicial Council’s Rules and Projects Committee, the task force developed suggested amendments for rules 4 and 9, which is posted online at www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courtadmin/jc/tflists/reprecord.htm

 

• Existing Statutory and Regulatory Provisions Affected by This Recommendation:

• Code of Civil Procedure Sections 269, 271, 274a

• Penal Code Sections 869, 871.5, 938.1, 1539

• California Rules of Court, rules 4, 9, 35, 35.1, 35.2