Does anyone know what rule (if any) there is on a nonparty ordering a copy of a deposition transcript?   We rec'd a request from an attorney who wants a copy of a transcript of a deposition someone in our firm took five years ago.   He was not present at the deposition, was not a party to the case at all, and is not divulging the reason for wanting the transcript now.   We called "taking" attorney and he said he had no idea who this attorney was -- never heard of him -- but, more importantly, when we asked if it was okay to sell this guy a copy of the transcript, he said, "Absolutely not."  

We feel the same way, as we do not know why this gentleman wants this transcript and for what purpose.   He is not new counsel to the case from what we can surmise, and he's not revealing his reasoning for wanting it when we inquired.

His secretary said, "I thought anybody could purchase a copy of a transcript."   So before I return her call (I did not personally speak to them, only the reporter involved), I'd like to be forearmed for my reasoning of not selling them a copy of a transcript to which they have no involvement in that particular case (at least from what we can determine).  I've searched SCAO's book on court reporters and furnishing of transcripts and this subject does not appear to be covered.  Perhaps there's federal rules we should be looking at.

Anyone out there that has come across this situation before and knows the answer, please advise.

Patricia Hyland wrote:

Hi Liz

The only thing I can think of is that if the deposition was never used in a public trial, it could not be considered available to the public, do you get what I mean?   It could be used in a divorce or something especially if he won't divulge why he wants it.   I think there is some privacy issues involved if it was taken in a case that never went to trial.   BUt I think you are right in calling the taking attorney first.   I would do that also.   I can't cite any rules or laws, but I would not sell if the attorney says no.

Pat Hyland

Thanks, Pat, for that response.  You know how sometimes you just want affirmation that you're doing the right thing, and both you and Marie Puchel responded similarly.

I spoke with the attorney yesterday and he was none too happy with me, but I explained that there may be confidential information in the transcript, perhaps a protective order entered into by the parties after the fact, et cetera -- a whole host of reasons why we shouldn't just sell a transcript (from a deposition) to nonparties.    I told him who both plaintiff and defense counsel were (which I think he already knew) and that if he wanted a copy, to contact them.   (We had already called taking party and he said no.)   So he informed me he was going to be sending me a subpoena.   I said fine, do what you need to do and we'll deal with it when we get it.

It was still unclear to me who he represented and I really don't think he wanted me to know anyway.  He just said he actually found the reporter's name from someone who has a copy of the transcript that was NOT either plaintiff or defense counsel and intimated that there was someone out there who already had a "bootlegged copy" (my term) of our transcript and that he was trying to do the right thing by purchasing it direct from the reporter and now was being penalized.   (Which still begs the question:  If someone else out there that he knows has a copy, why didn't that person give him a copy?)   So it's all too fishy to me.

Liz

Thanks, Tami,

That is exactly the type of information I was looking for to bolster my argument.   However, the latest is he is going to subpoena the transcript since we won't give it to him voluntarily.   Oh, well....

Liz