What is a Request for Court Reporter Services?

The rules for using a court reporter vary somewhat between counties. See, e.g., Nevada County ("Unless the court orders otherwise, the court does not provide court reporters for civil law and motion hearings and case management conferences at the court's expense. Any litigant who wants a record of a law and motion matter or a case management conference must arrange for the presence of a court reporter at his or her expense." (Local Rule 10.00.3B).)

Recovery of court reporter fees is generally allowable. (Heppler v. J.M. Peters Co. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1265, 1298.) Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(a)(11) allows for recovery of court reporter fees “as established by statute.” Conversely, Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(b)(5) disallows recovery of costs for transcripts of court proceedings “not ordered by the court.”

Government Code section 68086(d) states that “if an official court reporter is not available, a party may arrange for, at the party’s expense, the presence of a certified shorthand reporter to serve as an official pro tempore reporter…. The fees and charges of the certified shorthand report shall be recoverable as taxable costs by the prevailing party as otherwise provided by law.”

Court's have rejected plaintiff's argument that defendant can only recover the statutory fees associated with court reporter appearances. To the contrary, "the legislature provided in [Government Code] section 68086 an express exemption from statutory court reporter attendance fees for parties who retain a private reporter to serve as an official reporter pro tempore...." (Burd v. Barkley Court Reporters, Inc. (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 1037, 1047.)

An appellant may serve and file a motion to use a settled statement on a showing that there was no reporter’s transcript for the hearing. (Rules of Ct., Rule 8.137(b).)

Under Bus. & Prof. Code, Sec. 8016,

No person shall engage in the practice of shorthand reporting as defined in this chapter, unless that person is the holder of a certificate in full force and effect issued by the board. This section does not apply to a salaried, full-time employee of any department or agency of the state who is employed as a hearing reporter.

Useful Rulings on Request for Court Reporter Services

Recent Rulings on Request for Court Reporter Services

AMBRIZ VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY

(CCP § 1033.5(a)(11); Chaaban v. Wet Seal, Inc. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 49, 58 (mandatory court reporter fees recoverable).) Defendant seeks $28,956.26 in court reporter fees, or which Plaintiffs challenge $17,603.26, arguing that trial transcripts are not recoverable. As pointed out by Plaintiffs, transcripts of court proceeding are not recoverable unless ordered by the court. Defendant failed to show the trial transcripts were ordered by the court. GRANT in the amount of $17,603.26. F.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

ANDREW BURKOT VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Item 11: Court Reporter Fees CCP §1033.5(a)(11) classifies court reporter fees as established by statute as allowable costs under section 1032. County seeks $1,526 for its court reporter costs. Plaintiff seeks to strike this cost in its entirety on the ground that the Court did not order any transcripts to be prepared in this case. In opposition, County argues that court reporter costs are allowed even if transcripts of court proceedings under subsection (9) were not sought.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JILL LAFACE VS RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY ET AL

(CCP § 1033.5(a)(11); see Burd v. Barkley Court Reporters, Inc. (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 1037, 1050 [section 69950 does “not prevent a private reporter from charging contract rates . . . for producing deposition transcripts”].) The deposition costs were charged by the private reporters the parties retained to transcribe the depositions. (Murata Decl., Ex. A-2.) Plaintiff’s counsel selected the court reporting service and thus controlled the rates that both parties had to pay for deposition transcripts.

  • Hearing

    Aug 25, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

EDWARD CZUKER VS HOMAYOUN LARIAN

Government Code section 68086, subdivision (d)(2), provides that “a party may arrange for, at the party’s expense, the presence of a certified shorthand reporter to serve as an official pro tempore reporter,” and “the court shall appoint the certified shorthand reporter to be present in the courtroom and serve as the official reporter pro tempore unless there is good cause shown for the court to refuse that appointment.”

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

RANASINGHE VS. SHAYAN

[CCP § 1033.5(a)(11)]. Therefore, it was Plaintiff’s burden to establish that the $14,234.45 sought by Defendant was unreasonable or unnecessary. Plaintiffs merely indicate they cannot make that determination. A Court Reporter was used at trial herein and the invoices are attached to the Opposition as Ex. I. Therefore, the motion is DENIED as to Item 11.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

MRAZEK VS QUIROGA

CCP §1033.5(a)(11), Gov.C. 68068(c), (d), CRC 2.956(c); see also Chaaban v. Wet Seal, Inc. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 49, 58-59. Moreover, the fees charged were reasonable and necessary to the conduct of this litigation. The $550.00 costs incurred for skip tracing services are not recoverable. CCP §1033.5(b)(4) expressly states that investigation expenses in preparing the case for trial are not recoverable. The costs are taxed in the amount of $550.00.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

THOMAS JAMES VS LEAVITT GROUP AGENCY OF SAN DIEGO INC

Defendant challenges court reporter fees which are allowable under Section 1033.5, subdivision (a)(ll) and California Government Code section 68086, subdivision (d)(2).

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MILAN REI VIII, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS GREEN SOLAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Item 11: Court Report Fees CCP §1033.5(a)(11) classifies court reporter fees as established by statute as allowable costs under section 1032.

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ANDERSON VS. WAY WEST INC

CCP §1033.5(a)(11), Gov.C. 68068(c), (d), CRC 2.956(c); see also Chaaban v. Wet Seal, Inc. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 49, 58-59. Moreover, the fees charged were reasonable and necessary to the conduct of this litigation. There are two charges that total $3,209.53, identified as "partial trial transcript of intended decision" and "final trial transcript."

  • Hearing

    Feb 06, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

RAELENE ARREGUIN VS. PREFERRED AUTO BODY SHOP, LLC

CCP §1033.5(a)(11) classifies court reporter fees as established by statute as allowable costs. Although Plaintiff has not stated upon which statute she is relying for the recovery of court reporter fees, the Court will exercise its discretion to allow the recovery of such fees. (See CCP §1033.5(c)(4).) Thus, the motion to tax this cost is denied.

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2019

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JOE BILOTTA VS BMW OF NORTH AMERICA LLC

Government Code section 68086(d) states that “if an official court reporter is not available, a party may arrange for, at the party’s expense, the presence of a certified shorthand reporter to serve as an official pro tempore reporter…. The fees and charges of the certified shorthand report shall be recoverable as taxable costs by the prevailing party as otherwise provided by law.” (See also CRC Rule 2.956(c)(1) (reiterating the same).)

  • Hearing

    Nov 15, 2019

VITEC ELECTRONICS CORP. VS. VERIS INDUSTRIES, LLC

Court Reporter Costs Plaintiff seeks to tax the entirety of Defendants’ court reporter costs, which are allowed “as established by statute” under CCP § 1033.5(a)(11). Although Plaintiff argues in its opening papers that the costs are unrecoverable because “no statute . . . mandates that a party have a court reporter” (Mot. at p. 5), on reply, Plaintiff does not defend this position, arguing only that Defendants’ court reporter costs were not reasonably incurred. The Court disagrees.

  • Hearing

    Nov 01, 2019

MAHMOUDI VS BMW OF NORTH AMERICA LLC

(CCP § 1033.5(a)(11)) The amount requested for "other" is reduced from $2,452.79 to $1,746.59. Plaintiff is entitled to costs for deposition travel. (CCP § 1033.5(a)(3)(C)) Further, in its discretion, the court will allow mediation costs. (CCP § 1033.5(c). The deposition travel and mediation costs are reasonable in amount and reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation. (CCP § 1033.5(c)(2); see, Gibson v.

  • Hearing

    Oct 31, 2019

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS LIVING REBOS, LLC ETAL

Plaintiff asserts that “Defendant also claims $568.15 in reporting fees for a proceeding that lasted less than an hour” and “such fees are only recoverable per statute, CCP § 1033.5(a)(11), and specifically, at a rate of $55 a day or the pro rata share of same.” (Id. at p. 4:9-10 [citing Gov. Code § 69948].) Plaintiff argues that “Defendant is entitled to 1/24 of $55 or 2.29.” (Id. at p. 4:11.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 09, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

HUDACK VS LA CRESTA PROPERTY OWNERS

However, these costs are specifically authorized under CCP §1033.5(a)(11). Plaintiff Hudack contends the cost of transcripts are only authorized if ordered by the Court. Defendants do not seek the cost of transcripts under CCP § 1033.5(a)(9), but the cost for the court reporter under CCP § 1033.5(a)(11).

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2019

ON SEACOAST HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION VS. 1365 SEACOAST LLC [E-FILE]

As Plaintiff does not contest any of these fees in reply, the court allows these fees as costs under CCP § 1033.5(a)(11). 14. Fees for electronic filing or service of documents through an electronic filing service provider. Granted in part, denied in part. Gold Coast submits evidence in opposition to substantiate these fees. In reply, Plaintiff contests $1,504.00 for courtesy copies and motion fees.

  • Hearing

    Sep 19, 2019

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

ON SEACOAST HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION VS. 1365 SEACOAST LLC [E-FILE]

As Plaintiff does not contest any of these fees in reply, the court allows these fees as costs under CCP § 1033.5(a)(11). 14. Fees for electronic filing or service of documents through an electronic filing service provider. Granted in part, denied in part. Gold Coast submits evidence in opposition to substantiate these fees. In reply, Plaintiff contests $1,504.00 for courtesy copies and motion fees.

  • Hearing

    Sep 19, 2019

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

BUCHALTER NEMER VS ULTIMATE ACTION LLC

CCP § 1033.5(a)(11). Plaintiff argues that there is no documentation to support the purported costs in connection with the deposition to Theodore Fox. In response, Defendant provides copies of the relevant documentation and withdraws the $74.44 difference between its good faith estimate of $500 and the actual costs incurred of $425.56. (White Decl., Exhs. L, M.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2019

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MICHAEL SHABSIS VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIF

(CCP § 1033.5(a)(11).) The costs statute prohibits recovery of costs for “[t]ranscripts of court proceedings not ordered by the court.” (CCP § 1033.5(b)(5).) Plaintiff argues that the MOC’s request for such fees is deficient because there is no basis to determine whether the amount listed constitutes the cost of reporting alone or whether it impermissibly includes preparation of court transcripts. (Mot. at 12-13.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2019

ROBERT PHALEN VS HOSAKA NAGEL & CO

CCP §1033.5(a)(11) allows the recovery of "court reporter fees as established by statute." Govt. Code 68086 allows for the parties to arrange for their own court reporters and the fees for those services are recoverable. Here, the fees appear reasonable and the motion to tax is denied.

  • Hearing

    Jul 18, 2019

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY VS CLAREMONT GRADUATE

CCP § 1033.5(a)(11) includes “court reporter fees as established by statute” among the items allowable as costs.” Plaintiff argues that the $13,366.70 in court reporter fees for the trial may improperly include transcript costs that are not recoverable unless requested by the court.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

AILEN FITERZ ET AL VS FRANK BERRUECO ET AL

Court Reporter Fees Court reporter fees are allowable costs under CCP § 1033.5(a)(11); See, also, Chaaban v. Wet Seal, Inc. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 49, 58.) Plaintiff Fiterz has failed to show such fees to be unreasonable. Offer to Compromise Defendants delivered a CCP § 998 offer to compromise to Plaintiff Fiterz, who rejected the offer. “The policy behind section 998 is ‘to encourage the settlement of lawsuits prior to trial.’ [Citation.]” (Martinez v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2019

  • Judge

    Salvatore Sirna or Gary Y. Tanaka

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JENNIFER FRAISSL VS SONNY JOHN MOORE ET AL

(CCP § 1033.5(a)(11).) Moore Defendants move to tax this full amount because Plaintiff is seeking recovery of fees in excess of the amount “established by statute.” (Reply at 24.) Moore Defendants posit that Government Code section 69948 controls here. (Ibid.) The Court disagrees. Government Code section 69948’s $55 daily cap on reporter fees applies to court-retained reporters. (Urban Pacific Equities Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 688, 691; see also Gamage v.

  • Hearing

    Jun 28, 2019

DAVID TOMLIN VS CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS ET AL

CCP §1033.5(a)(11); Govt. Code §68086. In civil cases the fees for reporting and for all other transcriptions ordered by the court to be made shall be paid by the parties in equal proportion, and either party at his option may pay the whole. In either case, all amounts so paid by the party to whom costs are awarded shall be taxed as costs in the case. The fees for transcripts and copies ordered by the parties shall be paid by the party ordering them. Govt. Code §69953.

  • Hearing

    Jun 13, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

STANLEY V. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.

(CCP § 1033.5(a)(11); Benach, 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 858.) “The parties have to pay the court reporter regardless of whether anyone orders transcripts.” (Chaaban, 203 Cal.App.4th 49, 58.) The statutory rates do not apply when the parties had to use a private court reporter, such as here. (Gov. Code § 69948; Gamage v. Medical Board (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 936, 938; Barwis v. Superior Court (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 239, 242, fn. 3; Cal. R. Ct. 2.956(c).)

  • Hearing

    Jun 06, 2019

1 2 3 4 5     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.