Rudiger and Green

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the responseIf no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because: they have never responded to me in person with corrections nor are they up; to speed in technologyi believe some items were changed in the actual transcriptiontamperineother court reporter firms allow you to hear the transcription to see if it is transcribed correcti suspect some tampering occurred...it's response is just like the legal system antiquated and not customer oriented as to who i
paying for a product....there are some legal issues with product work...which legally means it belongs to an attorney...and pro se tempe is a version of an attorney and that is me...I owned the work...and should have had
access to the work product....for those reasons...I reject the response
Regards,
*** ***

January 26, 2015
Dear [redacted]:
I am in receipt of your letter dated January 20, 2015, in which [redacted] complained about our services.
We are a court reporting company. As such we provide court reporting services. The products of these services consist primarily of...

appearances by our court reporters to report legal proceedings in and out of court and to provide transcripts of those proceedings.As such, [redacted] did procure our services to appear in court. We provided that Service and did appear in court to report the proceedings. [redacted] subsequently requested a transcript of those proceedings which was also produced in a timely manner and provided to [redacted].Subsequent to that time, [redacted] did come to our office to demand several things.One of the issues was the one time use of the word “unintelligible” in the transcript. This arose from one time during the proceedings that [redacted] dropped her voice and what she said became unintelligible to the court reporter who was seated, in this case, 10-15 feet away. It is generally inappropriate for a court reporter to interrupt proceedings to request that a person speak up or speak clearly. It is incumbent on the judges and attorneys to make a clear record so that a court reporter can provide a complete, accurate transcript of the proceedings. Thus there was one place in the transcript that were marked “unintelligible.” While [redacted]'s suggestion about what she likely said was helpful, unless the court reporter can absolutely and independently verify what was actually said, the court reporter can't just put in words at someone else's suggestion. We did have the court reporter listen again to the primary and backup audio tapes and she was not able to absolutely verify what was actually said.
Another issue is that [redacted] demanded the audio tapes that the court reporter produced in the course of reporting the proceedings. These tapes are considered to be the court reporter's work products and are not available to clients. What clients pay for is the court reporter's appearance to report proceedings by whatever means and transcripts, not the reporter's notes or other means used to produce the transcript.
We did offer for [redacted] to tell us page numbers and line numbers where she thought there were mistakes and then we would have the court reporter make right any errors. [redacted] didn’t have time for that.
[redacted] also had issues regarding the use of “Q” (question) and “A” (answer) etc. throughout the transcript instead of the use of proper names. That transcript was properly prepared using commonly accepted formatting that judges and attorneys are very much familiar with.
Accordingly, at the beginning of the transcript, the one witness was identified by name. When questions and answers start during a proceeding, the person asking the questions is “set up” and identified by name. After that, all questions asked by that identified person begin with “Q” and all answers by the previously identified witness begin with “A.” If someone else begins to question the witness, then that person is “set up” and identified by name and any subsequent questions by that person begin with “Q.”If there is a period during the Q&A when the judge and the attorneys have an exchange or a discussion, then that becomes colloquy. During that discussion or exchange, the attorneys are identified by name, the judge is referred to as “The Court,” and the previously identified witness is referred to as “The Witness.”
Finally, I take great exception the [redacted]'s characterization that I had another staff member yell at her and say that she argues all the time. No voices other than hers was ever raised and neither myself nor anyone else in our office told her she argues all the time.
Sincerely,
John K
President