Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Court Reporting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee weighs licensing, access rules for court reporters and legal videographers
Summary
At a Senate Commerce and Labor hearing, stakeholders debated SB191, a bill that would clarify who may create and certify transcripts, expand regulation of non‑stenographic recording, and adjust court reporter fees; sponsor Sen. Skip Daley said he will meet with stakeholders to refine the bill.
Chair Pizina convened the Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor for a hearing on SB191, a bill that would revise how court reporters and certain non‑stenographic recording services are regulated and would update fee rates for official court reporters.
Sen. Skip Daley, sponsor of SB191 and representing Senate District 13, told the committee he is seeking three related changes: (1) revised notice and release rules for third‑party requests for transcripts, (2) clearer definitions and oversight for video/audio recording services that produce transcripts, and (3) a rate update for official court reporters included in section 16 of the bill. "When I hire a vendor, I hire a court reporter, pay them for a service. They have a work product that they give to me. In my view, that belongs to the people who requested and paid for it," Daley said, describing why he wants third‑party request rules clarified.
Why it matters: The bill addresses tensions between traditional stenographic court reporters — who take certified notes and may certify transcripts — and a growing market of litigation support vendors that record depositions or hearings and provide transcriptions from audio/video files. Proponents say regulation is needed to protect the integrity of records and public confidence; opponents say the Court Reporters Board would be exceeding its statutory authority and could limit competition and access to transcripts.
Proponents from the court reporting community, including Joe Guild of the Nevada Court Reporters Association and Kimberly Farkas, a certified court reporter and past association president, supported the licensing clarifications and the fee adjustments in section 16. Farkas said rates for official court reporters have not changed since 2015 and argued higher fees are needed to attract and retain reporters who travel to rural courts. Peggy Elias, a former member of the Nevada Certified Court Reporters Board, cited state law underlying the court reporting profession and said transcripts certified by an on‑site stenographic reporter carry a foundation that some judges require.
Opponents that testified included litigation support and digital deposition firms such as eDepositions LLC and national vendors represented by Brett Scolari. Jason Sanderson, owner of eDepositions, said, "We are not court reporters. We do not provide court reporting services. We are not a court reporting firm," and argued existing rules of civil procedure govern depositions and the Court Reporters Board does not have authority over non‑stenographic recording. Mark Ivy, CEO of eDepositions, called section 4 (third‑party transcript requests) a legal question for the judiciary rather than an administrative licensing matter and warned the bill could effectively require outsourcing transcript creation to the board.
Several witnesses, including attorney Kevin Diamond, told the committee judges sometimes refuse transcripts that lack the certification a stenographic reporter provides, producing practical problems for litigants. Diamond said judges require a foundation that a reporter who was physically present and took notes can provide; he described instances where transcripts produced from recordings were not accepted.
Key technical points and unresolved issues raised during the hearing: - Third‑party requests: Daley said the bill reverses an interim regulation process so that when a third party asks a court reporter for a transcript, the party that hired the reporter is notified and a requesting third party would need to go to court to overcome an objection. He said the purpose is to protect the purchaser/party who paid for the transcript. - Expert witness excerpts: Daley said the bill would allow release of expert witness portions under specific redaction rules and that the board and staff are still working on precise language. - Video recording and certification: Daley and witnesses debated whether videographers who produce transcripts should be subject to the Court Reporters Board. Daley said one option is to create two certificates under the same board — a traditional court reporter certificate and a legal video recorder certificate — with education and continuing education requirements for each. - Fee authority: Section 16 as drafted would update statutory rates for court reporters; the amendment also would allow the board to adjust fees by regulation under a formula (including CPI adjustments), a provision Daley said he borrowed from other boards.
What the committee did and next steps: No vote was taken. Daley repeatedly invited stakeholders on both sides to provide written comments and meet with his office; he said he will schedule follow‑up meetings and aims to reconcile outstanding issues quickly. Multiple witnesses supplied exhibits and offered to continue negotiations.
Ending: Committee members asked clarifying questions about rural coverage, certification, and the scope of the board's authority. Several witnesses urged collaboration; Daley closed by saying he will convene stakeholders and that section 16 (the fee changes) appears ready but that other sections remain a work in progress.
