Reporters and vendors debate Filevine/digital reporting at Court Reporters Board public comment
Loading...
Summary
Members of the public urged the board to study the practices of Filevine (digital reporting) and raised concerns about training and apprenticeship standards for new reporters; representatives from FireLine and Filevine spoke to assure compliance with California requirements.
Public commenters at the Court Reporters Board of California’s October meeting raised concerns about digital court reporting, firm acquisitions, apprenticeship hours and whether firms using new digital workflows comply with California statutory requirements.
Cindy Vega, president of the Deposition Reporters Association of California, told the board she and her association have received “quite a few comments and complaints from attorneys and judges about some reporters not being ready for the job,” singling out voice writers and saying apprenticeship hours for new reporters appeared inconsistent across applicants.
Austin McDaniel, chief operating officer of McDaniel Reporting, asked the board to place the recent Filevine acquisition and related practices on a future agenda for a standalone discussion. McDaniel said he was concerned whether file‑buying arrangements and the “reporter in charge” model comply with California Code of Civil Procedure requirements that testimony be taken stenographically (or by an authorized method) and that a CSR may not certify a transcript they did not personally take down.
Representatives for FireLine and Filevine addressed the board during Webex public comment. Lindsay Stoker, who identified herself as CSR #14373 and “reporter in charge with FireLine,” introduced the company, said FireLine was new to the market and stressed that “all testimony that will be taken in the state of California will be taken via steno or voice only.” Stoker said FireLine would have an informational webinar for interested parties and that the company “will follow all applicable laws as outlined and as mandated by the CRB.”
Dora Enriquez, who identified herself as CSR #12210 and said she serves as the second court reporter in charge for Filevine, stated that "Filevine has not taken a single deposition to date" and that the company was “currently working exclusively with California certified shorthand reporters.”
Board response and procedural note The board did not take formal action on the requests. Executive Officer Yvonne Fenner and staff said they would take public comment under advisement; board members and staff indicated that requests to study the topic could be scheduled for a future meeting. The board reiterated its rules for public comment (no discussion of pending complaints or applications) and noted that staff are available to discuss individual pending matters offline.
Why it matters If digital reporting business models or firm ownership structures allow transcripts to be produced without a certified reporter personally taking down testimony, that could raise statutory and regulatory questions about who may certify transcripts and where authority for certain practices resides. Commenters asked the board to examine those operational models to ensure they comport with California law and board licensing requirements.
Clarifying details - Cindy Vega (Deposition Reporters Association of California) expressed concern about apprenticeship hours and readiness of some new reporters. - Austin McDaniel requested that the board place Filevine as a separate agenda item for a future meeting to examine potential statutory compliance with the California Code of Civil Procedure. - Lindsay Stoker (FireLine) and Dora Enriquez (Filevine) both stated, on the record, that their companies are working with California certified reporters and asserted compliance with applicable law.
Next steps Board staff said they would take the public comments under advisement and could place the Filevine/digital reporting matter on a future agenda for deeper discussion if requested or if staff determine additional investigation is warranted.
