Losing light in favor of darkness – LA court’s relocation of reporters

Los Angeles County Superior Court's (LASC) plan to relocate court reporters from family law and probate cases to felony cases starting Nov. 14 treats symptoms, i.e., lack of court reporters, instead of disease, i.e., LASC's failure to recruit court reporters, while not making a good-faith effort to pursue less intrusive solutions.

Prior columns in this periodical mention electronic recorders as a solution to the alleged court reporter shortage. However, reporters may be used to create transcripts of those recordings, thereby leading back to the same alleged problem of lack of court reporters. Further problems exist with electronic recorders: (1) no live person in courtroom to ensure clear record and that people are not talking over each other; (2) they often have glitches and portions of proceedings DO NOT get recorded; (3) speaker's identity is not accurate because audio is transcribed by someone who was not present; and (4) it has failed repeatedly and judicial officers frequently bring live court reporters back into courtroom. Further, court reporters assist judicial assistants with determining whether a nunc pro tunc order is appropriate.

Another problem regarding electronic recorders is how the records will be stored, and for how long. Per Second Appellate District Local Rule 2(b), a motion to augment is due within either 40 days after filing of record or appointment of counsel or 30 days after filing of appellant's opening brief. But due to parties' ability to extend briefing schedule by stipulation per California Rules of Court Rule 8.212(b)(1) or court order per California Rules of Court Rule 8.212(b)(3), an appellate brief may not become due until more than six months after record or appellant's opening brief was filed.

Sometimes, not until drafting an appellate brief does one realize a hearing transcript needs to be part of the appellate record. Second Appellate District Local Rule 2(b) permits a motion to augment beyond the 30/40 deadlines for good cause, but will a record be there for augmentation if electronic recorders are used?

Also, less intrusive solutions besides relocation exist, such as: (1) Staggering hearing times throughout the day; and (2) Dispersing hearings for which a transcript is crucial, e.g., domestic violence restraining order hearings, so that they occur during "non-peak" times.

Plus, what part does LASC have to play in causing this alleged problem? LASC's administration has not actively recruited court reporters. It advertised for full and part-time positions but when reporters called to inquire about part-time, they were told part-time positions were not considered. Also, LASC administrators had not distributed flyers or any type of solicitation for hiring court reporters until approximately two weeks ago, and more than a month after the relocation announcement. And most egregious, LASC stalled for months to meet with the court reporters' association to develop options less intrusive than relocation, and at the meeting were dogmatic about relocation being the only resolution.

California gave courts $30 million earlier this year to hire reporters for family and civil courtrooms. LASC received $9 million, but they're scrapping the project the same year without anything to show for all that money?

A lack of a reporter's transcript, especially in family law fact-intensive cases, is fatal to an appeal. As the Second Appellate District reasoned, "[i]n many cases involving the substantial evidence or abuse of discretion standard of review, however, a reporter's transcript or an agreed or settled statement of the proceedings will be indispensable [sic]." So. California Gas Co. v. Flannery, 5 Cal. App. 5th 476, 483 (2016) (citation omitted). From personal experience, settled statements are inherently

inferior due to the difficulty in presenting arguments, listening to others talk, and preparing counter-arguments while trying to write down what was said. Thus, settled or agreed statements are not viable options, leaving reporter's transcripts as the sole practical means to preserve an appeal when two of the most prevalent standards of review are applied.

The Supreme Court of the United States noted that "[j]ustice, indeed, must satisfy the appearance of justice." Concrete Pipe & Products v. Constr. Laborers Pension Trust, 508 U.S. 602, 618 (1993) (quoting Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 243 (1980)), (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). That applies to the administration of justice. As shown by LA City Council's recent scandal, our government should be transparent with termination of back-room maneuvers. Instead of asking whether electronic recorders are a viable solution, the public should be asking: (1) Where's the $9 million and how has it been used? (2) Why is this drastic change occurring at the end of administrators' terms, thereby hamstringing their replacements? (3) Why is this drastic move being publicized at the cusp of its deployment? (4) Why have not less intrusive options been pursued in good faith?, and (5) Why will administrators not with sincerity meet with the court reporters' association to earnestly develop less intrusive solutions?

We as a people cannot live in the light of justice while being shrouded in darkness. Relocation of reporters should be the last solution ... and after the $9 million has been used properly.