Burd v. Barkley Court Reporters, Inc.
17 Cal. App. 5th 1037
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2017Background
- Plaintiff Tara R. Burd (an attorney) retained Barkley Court Reporters to serve as an official reporter pro tempore for a Los Angeles County Superior Court hearing and paid about $587 for the transcript.
- Plaintiff sued, alleging defendant charged excessive transcription fees in violation of Gov. Code §§ 69950 and 69954, and asserted a derivative UCL claim on behalf of a putative class.
- Defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing the statutory transcription rates apply only to court-employed official reporters, not privately retained reporters serving pro tempore.
- The trial court granted the motion and entered judgment for defendant; plaintiff appealed.
- The Court of Appeal reviewed statutory construction de novo and considered the statutory text, scheme, administrative interpretation, and policy arguments.
- The court reversed: it held §§ 69950 and 69954 apply to any reporter producing a transcript of a civil court proceeding (court-employed or privately retained pro tempore reporters).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §§ 69950 and 69954 limit statutory transcription rates to court-employed official reporters | Statutory rates apply to any court reporter producing a transcript, including privately retained pro tempore reporters | Statutory rates apply only to official reporters employed by the court; privately retained reporters are not subject to those rate limits | The statutes apply to all court reporters producing transcripts in superior court proceedings, regardless of employment status |
| Whether statutory scheme (article 9) and § 69947 narrow application of rates to "official reporter" employees | Article 9 fees should govern all reporters; no textual limitation to employees | § 69947’s reference to "official reporter" shows legislature intended fees only for court-employed reporters | Court rejected defendant’s reading: article 9 references to pro tempore include both court-employed and privately retained reporters and do not exempt private reporters from transcription-rate limits |
| Whether later statutes/rules authorizing privately retained pro tempore reporters (e.g., § 68086, rule 2.956) imply exemption from transcription fee limits | Statutory silence about private reporters in § 69950/69954 means limits apply; § 68086 expressly exempts attendance fees but not transcription fees | Because § 68086 and rule 2.956 address privately retained reporters, those reporters are outside article 9 transcription limits | Court held legislature’s express exemption for attendance fees but not transcription fees implies transcription rates apply to privately retained pro tempore reporters |
| Whether administrative interpretation or policy concerns (freedom of contract, reporter shortage) affect construction | Board of Court Reporters and professional associations treat statutory rates as applying to pro tempore reporters; public policy supports uniform rates | Application would interfere with contract freedom and deter reporters from serving pro tempore | Court gave weight to Board’s long-standing interpretation and held policy concerns are for legislature to address; freedom of contract not absolute and appointment makes pro tempore reporters officers of the court |
Key Cases Cited
- Los Angeles v. Vaughn, 55 Cal.2d 198 (official reporter acts as court officer and employee when preparing reporter's transcript)
- Cramer v. Superior Court, 130 Cal.App.4th 42 (distinguishing official reporters and pro tempore reporters; employment status may vary)
- Ceja v. Rudolph & Sletten, Inc., 56 Cal.4th 1113 (de novo review for statutory construction guidance)
- Hassan v. Mercy American River Hospital, 31 Cal.4th 709 (statutory interpretation principles)
- Serrano v. Stefan Merli Plastering Co., Inc., 162 Cal.App.4th 1014 (ministerial officers of the court include appointed reporters)
- Viking Pools, Inc. v. Maloney, 48 Cal.3d 602 (legislature presumed aware of existing laws when enacting new statutes)
- Smith v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 96 Cal.App.4th 117 (courts should not rewrite statute to avoid perceived policy problems; legislature should correct unintended consequences)