Court Refuses To Let Party Call Court Reporter As a Witness at Trial Regarding Testimony At Deposition

In the case of Radzierez v. Kunkle, No. 002277-CV-2021 (C.P. Monroe Co. April 23, 2024 Zulick, J.), the court addressed several issues in a Rule 1925 Opinion arising out of a breach of contract claim.

Of note, the court ruled that the Defendant was not entitled to call a court reporter at trial to testify regarding an alleged error in a witness’ deposition transcript.

The court noted that it is “highly inappropriate” to call an official court reporter to testify about what is said at a deposition. The court noted that “[t]he transcript is the transcript.”

The court ruled that an official court reporter types what they believe they heard. If the court reporter keeps an audio recording, as most do, that can help the court reporter when transcribing their notes. The court noted that, typically, court reporters transcribe from what they typed at the time of the deposition and may use audio for assistance thereafter, if necessary.

Judge Zulick noted that it would be impractical to call in court reporters to testify about a transcript when court reporters are simply going to testify that they typed what they believed that they heard.

The court additionally noted that anyone who disagrees with the content of a transcript of a deposition is generally given time to review the transcript and object as to its accuracy or provide corrections. In this case, the court noted that, although this option was apparently not stated to the witness following his deposition, that witness could have requested to do so in an effort to note if there were any mistakes in the transcript.

The court additionally noted that it had properly declined the party’s request to call the court reporter as a witness at this trial as there is no notice of the intent to do so provided by that party in the party’s previous discovery responses, in any Pre-Trial Conference Memorandums, or at the Pre-Trial Conference. The record revealed that the party who wished to call the court reporter had known of the alleged error for months prior to trial and never provided any such notice. As such, the party could not claim any surprise as to the alleged error in the transcript as the alleged error had been a topic of dispute between the parties in the months leading up to trial.

Finally, the court also noted that there was other discovery in the case with which the party could have used to cross-examine the witness relative to any alleged error in the transcript.

For all of these reasons, the trial court indicated in its Rule 1925 Opinion that it was not error to preclude the party from calling the official court reporter from a deposition to testify at trial.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Weekly Case Update - www.Law.com (July 4, 2024).