Court Reporters

The Best Deposition Transcript Results From Cooperation Between Attorneys and Court Reporters

While over-talking can endanger a clear and concise deposition transcript, sometimes a larger danger is excessive interruptions and argumentation by and between the attorneys.

Human Court Reporters Can Keep Depositions Running Smoothly

Attorneys need to achieve many results from a deposition. Attorneys need to obtain the full range of facts and opinions possessed by the witness. Just as importantly, attorneys need a clear and concise deposition transcript to be used for trial preparation, for summary judgment and other motions to be filed with the judge, for impeachment purposes, and for settlement negotiations. Attorneys also want to keep costs down as much as possible. Since transcription costs are “per page,” focused depositions save money. Dedicated and experienced court reporting can help achieve all of these goals. If you need court reporting services for your depositions, call Elizabeth Gallo Court Reporting, LLC, a top-tier national court reporting service. Our number is (866) 689-1837. We accept orders via email, phone, and online.

Digital Court Reporter at work

Over-talking can cause bloated, fragmented, and reduced quality transcripts

Over-talking by witnesses and attorneys is one reason that a transcript might become bloated, fragmented, and fail to achieve the quality needed for summary judgment motions and impeachment. The problem is that court reporters can only capture and transcribe one voice at a time. Thus, cooperation between the attorneys taking the deposition and the court reporters is important. Court reporters can help with polite interjections. But, court reporters must have the help of the attorneys too. Attorneys must “slow things down.” This is not uncommon at the beginning of a deposition when a witness, for example, might be overanxious and start answering before the question is finished. Attorneys should take the lead in slowing the witness down, but court reporters can help.

Court Reporters Reduce Over-Talking And Keep Proceedings Clear

While over-talking can endanger a clear and concise deposition transcript, sometimes a larger danger is excessive interruptions and argumentation by and between the attorneys. Of course, attorneys must interrupt at times to make evidentiary objections. These must generally be placed between a question and a witness’s answer. But, often, this leads to arguments — sometimes heated arguments — between the lawyers. Over-talking is a danger along with shouting, rude talk, and speed talk. All of these can be difficult to transcribe. Again, cooperation between court reporters and attorneys is essential. A polite comment from the court reporter will usually “calm things down” — something like: “Counsel — if you want to present this disagreement to the court, you will need to slow down so I can get each word on the transcript.”

It must be recognized that, sometimes, “sowing confusion” during a deposition can be a litigation tactic used by opposing counsel. In other words, excessive argumentation and intentionally rude behavior can be used as a tactic to distract the lead counsel’s effort to obtain a clear and reliable transcript. The question of “reliability” becomes activated by this tactic since opposing counsel can argue something like “the witness was so confused by all the people talking that the answer cannot be given credence.” But, even for a tactic of this sort, there must be a clear transcript. Judicious efforts by an experienced court reporter to “slow the talking down” can make a big difference.

Contact Elizabeth Gallo Court Reporting Today

For more information, call the experienced court reporters at Elizabeth Gallo Court Reporting. We follow the best practices in order to provide excellent litigation support to our customers. Contact us today to learn about our services and how we can help you.

Contact Us

Court Reporting and Expert Witnesses

In many complex litigation cases, lawyers know that expert witnesses can "make or break" the case. As such, an expert's deposition is a crucial event in the life of a complex litigation case whether you are presenting the expert witness or opposing. Needless to say, dedicated experienced court reporting is essential to expert witness depositions.

experienced court reporting is essential to expert witness depositions.

In many complex litigation cases, lawyers know that expert witnesses can “make or break” the case. As such, an expert’s deposition is a crucial event in the life of a complex litigation case whether you are presenting the expert witness or opposing. Needless to say, dedicated experienced court reporting is essential to expert witness depositions. If you need court reporting services for your experts, call Elizabeth Gallo Court Reporting, LLC., a top-tier national court reporting service. Our number is (866) 689-1837. We accept orders via email, online, phone and via telefax at (866) 870 – 6032.

court reporter hands on a stenograph

Experienced and seasoned court reporting is essential for expert opinion depositions for several reasons. First, expert witnesses tend to use technical and even scientific words, phrasing and language. Technical and scientific language presents unique challenges in terms of hearing, understanding and spelling. The purpose of court reporting is to accurately capture what is being said in real time. But, a good court reporter will “slow down” the testimony to ensure the accuracy of the transcript. Techniques include asking the expert witness to talk slower, to repeat various words and ask for the spelling of technical and/or scientific words. A good court reporter can make notes on a sheet of paper keeping a running list of words and names that should be clarified during breaks or at the end of the deposition.

Court Reporters Can Read the Room.

As indicated, pacing of an expert witness’ testimony during a deposition is important. If the expert talks too fast, it can be difficult to obtain an accurate transcript. Thus, using unobtrusive methods, good court reporters will help control the pacing and flow of the testimony.

Good court reporters are also familiar with some of the unique aspects of expert witness questioning. For example, there can be a lot of repetitive questions since, at an expert deposition, the expert is expected to identify ALL of his or her opinions. Failure to state any and all opinions can result in some opinions being excluded based on the discovery rules of civil procedure. Good expert witness court reporters understand why there is this type of repetitive questioning and that helps ensure the transcript is accurate.

The need to obtain all of the expert’s opinions can also lead to unusually quick, droning, and rote questioning from the lawyers which can be confusing to new and inexperienced court reporters. As an example, in certain types of cases, opinions involve whether the defendant in the case met the applicable standard of care for his or her profession. Thus, in a medical malpractice case involving a surgeon, many questions might begin like this: “Q. Based on your knowledge, training and skills, do you have an opinion about whether the defendant exercised the skill and care ordinarily employed by a reasonably prudent surgeon under the same or similar circumstances with respect to ….?” That is a “mouthful” but good expert witness court reporters understand what is being asked — and why — and that helps ensure the transcript is accurate.

Contact Elizabeth Gallo Court Reporting Today

 For more information, call the experienced court reporters at Elizabeth Gallo Court Reporting. We follow the best practices in order to provide excellent litigation support to our customers. Contact us today to learn about our services and how we can help you.

Contact Us

Why You Need Depositions Instead of Witness Interviews

Every lawyer knows that witnesses must be contacted and interviewed. But an interview is not enough to properly and thoroughly prepare for trial (at least not for key witnesses). Make no mistake, potential witnesses must be contacted and interviewed. But the main reasons for the interview are to determine if they are a “key” witness and to determine if the testimony of the witness must be taken via a deposition. Interviews are no substitute for depositions.

Why are depositions better than witness interviews?

Why? First, depositions are the best process for “cementing” a witness’s testimony and opinions. An interview is nothing more than that, and interview notes have no use in a trial. You cannot, for example, impeach a witness with interview notes if the witness says something different “on the stand” from what they said during the interview. By contrast, a deposition transcript — prepared by talented court reporters — can be used to impeach a witness. This is largely because, before a deposition begins, the witness must be sworn to tell the truth.

Get to know your witness's personality and presence

Second, an interview does not generally bring an attorney and a witness face-to-face. Typically, interviews are done over the phone. For trial purposes, it is essential to see the face and body language of a witness, which are classic indications of truthfulness and credibility. Further, some witnesses present as “likable” and “serious” or with other qualities that may be positive in front of a jury. Other witnesses will present in the opposite manner. These qualities are important for trial preparation and for how such a witness can be handled during a trial. A witness with a “disagreeable” personality might be given a quick direct examination to obtain their evidence and then sent as quickly as possible out of the courtroom. These qualities might be vaguely perceived during an interview, but can only be truly determined during the process of a deposition.

A Deposition is Practice for Testimony in Court

In a similar manner, a deposition can be seen as a “practice” — maybe a “dress rehearsal” — for the witness’s later testimony presented in front of the jury (or another fact-finder). The practice can help a witness be less nervous during the trial testimony. This is one reason to not be too concerned about presenting your own witnesses for a deposition. The practice can help the witness and show areas for improvement.

A Deposition is a Strategic Advantage

Fourth, because opposing sets of attorneys are present at a deposition (unlike an interview), a deposition allows litigators to test the strength of a witness’s testimony and to glean aspects of the other parties’ trial tactics and strategies. The opposing lawyers will have questions of their own, may focus on certain documents or certain parts of the testimony, or ignore aspects of the case. All of these can provide insights into the trial strategies of the other parties. In asking their questions, the opposing attorneys might demonstrate the strength or weakness of a witness’s testimony in a manner that is usually impossible during an interview.

Contact Elizabeth Gallo Court Reporting Today

For more information, call the experienced court reporters at Elizabeth Gallo Court Reporting. We follow the best practices in order to provide excellent litigation support to our customers. Contact us today to learn about our services and how we can help you.

AI Court Reporters? No, Human Court Reporters Are The Only Viable Choice.

Here at Elizabeth Gallo Court Reporting, we occasionally hear the thought expressed that there is no need for human court reporters. “Why not use artificial intelligence?” After all, supposedly, audio and video are “less expensive, “more efficient,” and computer artificial intelligence programs have become good at translating words into text and then producing a transcript of the deposition, hearing, or trial proceedings. However, those things are not true. Legal proceedings are human proceedings and human court reporters are the only viable choice. Let’s take a closer look at the severe limitations of AI court reporters.

Court Reporting Services Have Evolved With the Technology.

But, first, let’s dispense with the idea that human court reporters are not using audio recordings. Court reporting services have evolved with the technology. Every good court reporting service uses audio recording to supplement the stenotyping of the court reporter. If you have been in a court proceeding or a deposition, you have seen this. The court report is stenotyping and there is a microphone and a recording device on the table or the court’s bench. Before it is finalized, the accuracy of the transcript is verified by listening to the audio recording. So, audio recordings are already being used by court reporters.

The Human Touch Matters in Human Proceedings.

Next, let’s understand the purpose of a transcript — to fully, accurately, and faithfully transcribe into text every single spoken word as said by those who are speaking. Human court reporters can ensure this goal is achieved — AI court reporters cannot. Let’s take a simple example. Imagine a hotly disputed divorce case. Today is the deposition of the wife and the case involves allegations of adultery by the husband. At some point, in answer to a question, the wife stands up and shouts: “Then he had sexual relations with that woman!”

An AI court reporter would blithely continue recording. By contrast, a human court reporter would know that an emotional storm was about to overtake the deposition room. An AI court reporter would just continue to record while the human people in the room began shouting, overtalking, and making it impossible to get any sort of accurate transcript. A human court reporter would politely intervene, gain the attention of the attorneys in the room, and bring them back to the legal understanding that an accurate transcript cannot be obtained in such a situation. The attorneys would remember the practical and legal purposes of the transcript, bring order to the room, and backtrack with questions and answers to ensure a useful and accurate deposition transcript. The example shows that the human touch matters in human proceedings.

AI Hallucinations and Guessing Can Impact Accuracy of the Transcript

The other problem with AI and machine learning software is that they use “guessing” and pattern recognition to “fill in” blanks. If the audio recording is not clear, an AI court reporter will guess since its programming tells it to generate a satisfactory sentence. Did the witness say “in” or “on?” It does not matter to the AI court reporter. The AI program will evaluate 100s or 1000s of similar sentences that have been fed into its programming and will “guess” as to which is more likely based on pattern recognition and statistics. A human court reporter will not do this. A human reporter will find out what the witness actually said.

For these and many other reasons, human court reporters are the only viable option.

Contact Us Today

For more information, call the experienced court reporters at Elizabeth Gallo Court Reporting. We follow the best practices in order to provide excellent litigation support to our customers. Contact us today to learn about our services and how we can help you.