The Court Reporters Board of California voted to take the position that court reporters may charge expedited-deposition transcript fees to all parties, and it directed staff to prepare legislative language to carry that position to the Legislature.

Legal counsel summarized governing law and relevant case history before the vote. Counsel told the board that Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.510 states the noticing party shall bear the cost of transcription unless a court orders otherwise, and that subdivision (d) requires the transcript “shall be made available to all parties at the same time.” Counsel noted appellate and Supreme Court decisions addressing what fees are reasonable for copy parties and that, under current law, charging a copy party for expedited service raises questions; counsel advised the board that discipline for charging a copy party “is legally supported” under existing statutes but that a rule allowing charging copy parties would require legislative change.

Board members voiced differing views. Miss Sunkeez argued the board’s mission is consumer protection but that reporters provide a value-added product and “it would be unfair to charge 1 party and not the others for all services provided.” By contrast, Mister Dodgenam said charging a copy party could create a market advantage for wealthier parties and “it puts the copying party…at a disadvantage,” and favored keeping the expedited fee to the requesting party only.

Public comment included freelance reporters, agency representatives and commenters who urged careful limits and fairness; one public commenter said, “you absolutely cannot charge someone for an expedite if they do not request an expedite certified copy you don't have the right to unilaterally do that.”

Motion and vote: the board member moved that “the expedite fee can be charged to all parties”; Miss Brewer seconded. The roll call recorded votes in favor by Miss Brewer, Mister Manayan, Mister Sanki and Mister Gotti, with Mister Dodge Nam recorded as voting no; the motion carried. Legal staff confirmed that, because the current statute assigns requesting-party responsibility for requested services, implementing a policy to charge copy parties would require submission of legislation and the Legislature could adopt, modify or reject the board’s requested change. Staff will draft legislative language and seek an author to carry it forward.