Settlement means refund on overcharged reporter fees

Customers who claim they paid inflated prices for transcriptions from the state's largest and oldest private court reporting company will be reimbursed for fees paid above the statutory rate, according to a class action settlement.

The agreement between a class of purchasers and Barkley Court Reporters Inc. is subject to preliminary approval on March 15 by Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Maren Nelson.

The class is defined as anyone who paid more than the applicable statutory rate when purchasing a transcript from Barkley Court Reporters for an official court proceeding since July 2009.

The case, which involved issues of equal access to justice, authority to regulate fees and a stop at the appellate court, addressed whether the law regarding court transcript fees should be equally applied to both pro tem and public, court-employed reporters.

San Diego litigator Tara Burd filed suit against the company five years ago over a $587 transcript bill, arguing the $6.10 she was billed per transcript page in addition to fees and paper copies exceeded the cost of production, according to the complaint. Tara Burd v. Barkley Court Reporters Inc., BC556703 (L.A. Super., Ct., filed Sept. 12, 2014).

The plaintiffs cited Government Code Sections 69950 and 69954, which state transcript fees are 85 cents per 100 words. Salaried court reporters statewide said that comes out to between $2.55 per page and $2.75 per page.

Per the settlement, the company agrees to comply with the rates set forth in those codes "for all court reporters employed by the courts and privately-retained, certified, shorthand reporters who serve as official reporters pro tempore."

The settlement doesn't indicate an amount the class stands to potentially reap.

Class counsel James R. Patterson of the Patterson Law Group did not respond to a request for comment nor did Marc V. Allaria of Litchfield Cavo LLP in Pasadena. Dan Wilen, president and of counsel at Barkley, declined comment.

Yvonne Fenner, executive officer of the Court Reporters Board of California, which licenses and regulates the profession, viewed the law as applying "to public or private reporters, no matter who is producing or hiring the court reporters."

Amicus briefs filed in the case on behalf of two trade associations said since pro tem court reporters are not salaried and generate their own benefits, they shouldn't be bound by statute governing public employees' extra income.

The plaintiffs previously argued the rate of a top-dollar court reporter hired by one side couldn't be afforded by the other.

In 2016, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Amy Hogue said the courts couldn't regulate court transcription fees, ruling the government had no interest in the matter. She said low-income litigants who could not afford the rates could ask for a statement of record.

In her reasoning, Hogue ruled that because the Legislature omitted the term "official court reporter pro tempore" from Section 69947, the fee provisions do not apply to private reporters appointed pro tempore.

The 2nd District Court of Appeal, in overturning Hogue, had an opposite interpretation. Because the statute did not expressly exclude private reporters appointed pro tem, the fee rates applied equally to both types of reporters. The court also noted the law predated court layoffs.