Proposed Rules Archives

• Proposed Changes to CR 28 (d) - Persons Before Whom Depositions may be Taken - Equal Terms Required (in Word Format)
• Comments Received for CR 28 (d) - Persons Before Whom Depositions may be Taken - Equal Terms Required

A. Name of Proponent: Washington Court Reporters Association

B. Spokespersons:

• Steve Crandall, Esq.
  WCRA Past President
  2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 425
  Seattle, Washington 98136
  206.938.0348
  steve@promotionarts.com
• Phyllis Craver Lykken, CCR
  WCRA Past President
  Legislative Chair
  NCRA Past Regional Representative, Western Region
  917 Triple Crown Way, Suite 200
  Yakima, Washington 98908
  509.457.3377
  phyllis@centralcourtreporting.com

C. Purpose:

The purpose of amending CR 28(d) is to ensure that deposition transcripts are offered to all parties on equal terms and to maintain the impartiality and neutrality of court reporters.

Unlike attorneys, court reporters are intended to be neutral officers of the court in our judicial system. At its core, their job is to create an accurate record of testimony given during depositions and court or administrative proceedings. But court reporting is also a business. And like all businesses, competitors are constantly looking for a leg up. In recent years some reporting agencies - particularly national firms - have resorted to what is called "third party contracting" to achieve that advantage.

Third party contracting refers to the situation in which a court reporting firm enters into multi-case contracts that provide preferred pricing and create advocatory relationships. The contracts are typically with insurance companies, large corporations and law firms, and they provide discounted service in exchange for the former's promise to use the court reporting firm. National firms are very aggressive in marketing these multi-case contracts. One national reporting firm, the subject of a lawsuit in Arizona, has apparently offered 20% to 30% discounts off its regular rates for contracted parties. These agreements create a long-term contractual relationship between the reporting agency and party or counsel. Both WCRA and the National Court Reporters Association (NCRA) strongly oppose the practice, but it continues to grow.

WCRA believes this very common scenario effectively eviscerates the Court's mandates for fair dealing and equitable treatment, reduces and/or restricts the court reporter's accountability to the public and the courts, jeopardizes the security and confidentiality of the official record, and removes any meaningful avenue of redress, undermining the purpose of CR 28 in two critical ways.

A court reporting agency that has a long-term contract with one of the parties is not a disinterested person under CR 28(c). Second, there is no mechanism for ensuring that all parties are actually receiving the deposition transcript on equal terms as the current CR 28(d) envisions. Instead, whether parties are treated equally is left to the discretion of the court reporting agency that invoices each party. As a practical matter, lawyers rarely inquire whether the reporting firm they used for a deposition is actually offering the transcript to the other side on equal terms. Even more troubling, the court reporting agency may not be regulated by the Department of Licensing and may or may not be aware of Rule 28(c) and (d). But it has a significant financial interest in not offering the same discounted terms to all parties.

D. Hearing: WCRA requests a hearing.

E. Expedited Consideration: WCRA requests expedited consideration.