Wednesday, May
8, 2013
Page 1
C.A. Rejects
Challenge to Court Reporter’s Allegedly Excessive Fees
By KENNETH
OFGANG, Staff Writer
The
sole means of challenging a court reporter’s fees for deposition transcripts as
excessive is by motion filed in the action in which the depositions were taken,
the Court of Appeal for this district ruled yesterday.
Div.
Six affirmed the dismissal of an equitable action seeking an injunction on
behalf of a class made up of litigants who had purchased transcripts of
depositions taken by various defendants—including Merrill Communications, LLC
and its subsidiary Wordwave, Inc., which Merrill has described as the world’s
largest court reporting and transcription firm—over a four-year period.
The
plaintiff, The Los Canoas Company, Inc., alleged that it was added as a
defendant in a construction defects case in Santa Barbara Superior Court
several years ago, after 57 depositions had been taken. The company said it
inquired of the court reporters how much it would cost to obtain copies of the
transcripts, and was told $2 per page.
The
company said it objected to the charge, which would have run to $16,000 for
copies of all 57 depositions. Instead, it paid about $1,200 for copies of three
of the depositions. While it made its objections known to the court reporters,
the company did not seek to have the rate reduced by the court.
About
four years later, the company filed suit. It sought an injunction limiting the
defendants’ charges for transcripts to 25 cents per page, or flat rates of
between $15 and $35 for electronic copies, depending on the mode of
transmission.
Demurred Sustained
Ventura
Superior Court Judge Mark Borrell sustained a demurrer, ruling that the company
should have filed a motion under Code of Civil Procedure Secs. 2025.510 and
128(a)(5), which allow trial courts to determine the reasonableness of court
reporters’ charges for copies of transcripts. The judge cited Serrano v.
Stefan Merli Plastering Co., Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1014, which
suggested that the statutes could be enforced upon motion of a party that did
not notice a deposition.
Borrell wrote:
“The
deposition process is central to the administration of civil litigation, and
court reporters, as deposition officers, are officers of the court and subject
to the court’s supervision. A non-noticing party’s right to obtain a deposition
transcript at a reasonable fee is statutory, and the means to enforce that
right is by motion to the judge presiding over the action in which the
deposition is conducted. That judge is in the ‘best position’ to resolve any
dispute. Reserving the issue to be subsequently determined by another judge would
undermine the discretion vested in the original trial judge to control
proceedings in his or her courtroom.”
He
also said the request for injunctive relief was “[p]articularly troublesome”
because granting it would “directly abridge the discretion of judges assigned
to future cases to determine the reasonableness of defendant’s fees.”
Presiding
Justice Arthur Gilbert, writing for the Court of Appeal, agreed.
No Extraordinary Circumstances
He
acknowledged that nothing in the statutes or in Serrano expressly
precluded a separate action to determine the reasonableness of transcript fees.
But the concerns expressed by the trial judge, he said, illustrate why “absent
extraordinary circumstances, the court in the action in which the dispute
arises is the only court to resolve the issue.”
The
case is The Las Canoas Company, Inc. v. Kramer, 13 S.O.S. 2335.
Copyright
2013, Metropolitan News Company