Stuttering Atty.....and Uh-huh/Uh-uh.....

[Rhoda Collins]

Do you not put any 'stuttering' in the transcript if they are repeating "the-the-the" type thing?? How 'verbatim' is the rule?

And do you interupt them to answer when the atty lets them uh-huh/etc for all the answers???

Thanks.
Rho

[Kyung]

There's stuttering and false starting. If it's false starts, I put them in. If it's a genuine stutter, I'd try to get what I could, but if I can't, I don't worry about it too badly. If it's videotaped, I try to get the majority of it.

If the witness continually says uh-huh or uh-uh. I let the witness say it. It's the attorney's job to catch that, not mine. I might say something once at the beginning. But if the witness does it a lot, then the attorney should be calling them on it, not us.

[Brenda Rogers]

I don't feel it's my job to clarify uh-huh or huh-uh. I read on some forum an atty was very unhappy with a CR for doing so -- he was willing to leave it ambiguous if the deponent's atty wasn't going to make sure his client was using clear language. I don't think it would be appreciated around here if I were to clarify it. Now, if I couldn't distinguish uh-huh, huh-uh, I'd ask, but usually if I can't figure it out, the atty can't either and asks for clarification.

True stuttering, I don't put in because I think that's calling attn to a physical problem unnecessarily. I'd put in a couple to show it's there and then leave it be. No reason to embarrass someone. False starts I was taught to remove for attys. Nowadays, if I write it in, I usually leave it in. If I'm catching up, those are the things I'm going to skip.

I'm going to be strung up for this opinion, but here goes . . .
Any tape recorder (digital, whatever) when working correctly can get *everything* -- just look at the insurance statements with every uh and um in it. A living, breathing, *thinking* court reporter has something called judgment, and we can make a smart verbatim transcript, without the extraneous uhs, ums, and stutters. If we're going to be *strictly* verbatim as opposed to a transcript that is clear and readable and useful, we would put in the uhs and ums and partial words, like the insurance statements. We're better than that.

[Rhoda Collins]

I was hoping this topic would be 'interesting' also. :) And it is! I hope others chime in...

[Rhoda Collins]

Me too! :) I don't 'have' a style, but I will after this, lol.

[Brenda Rogers]

You put yourself into the tript? Usually the way the clarification is done here is:
A Uh-huh.
Q Yes?
A Yes.

So no need to go into colloquy. If I say, "Excuse me?" or "What was that?" I don't show that at all; I just put in what I didn't hear or didn't understand. But I only clarify if I totally didn't hear or understand, don't even write whatever it was. The transcript is unbroken. If it's a big enough interruption, I'll put (Discussion off the record), but I don't put myself in at all.

[Brenda Rogers]

Yep, I do that same with the by-lines. Okay, I see the colloquy if the other atty clarifies. But you don't do that if Q'g atty does, do you?

[Brenda Rogers]

Oh . . .never mind my next. I was reading these backwards. :)

[Judy]

I'm with Brenda, it's their job, not mine, to clarify the record (unless, of course, I can't hear the answer).

But... afa "stuttering" attorneys? Yesterday I had a guy that would say "okay" anywhere from three to five times b/f he asked the question. Same thing with "great." He did it sooooo often that I had to write it and have to leave it in. I told the hiring secretary (major partner's secretary) he needs to stop all of these "extra" words b/c it's making a messy transcript. She said she knows, he does it in his everyday speech pattern and she wants to yell at him, "Just say it!" For him, I write his "stuttering," and then paragraph so at least they know when to really start reading the thing.

Another interesting thing about yesterday's depo. They're in this heated conversation about whether the question's been answered. Witness actually has two attorneys representing her. One of the guys says something he probably shouldn't have said. It goes on for a while.

Q'ing atty said something like, You told her what to say.
He says, I did not.
You did, read it back.

Okay, I read it back. Yes, he surely said that they claimed he said.

He says to me, I didn't say that. Are you recording this?
Half the room chimes in, You bet she is!
He says, I want to hear your recording!
Me, I can't play back the file while I'm in the file, otherwise it'll corrupt the file, and I'm not going to do that. (Hey, whatever works, right?)
Him, Can I order the audio?
Me, You have to subpena it.
Him, Can I subpena it?
Me, No. Play Wink

And he let it go.

Sometimes, these attys, you just want to scream.

[Brenda Rogers]

Jackass!! "I didn't say that." How dare he.

I have a client who says, "Okay. All right. Okay. All right." as he's thinking about his next question. I put in one or two and leave it. When the false starts are just insane . . .you know, the six false starts before they get there? . . . I put those in. But if they say, "I -- You," or "When -- when" I just skip those. They add nothing IMO. The constant restarts show a speech pattern and is distracting, hard to follow a question. I don't clean them up *that* much!

[Rhoda Collins]

I do things like you, Brenda. good to know, lol.
Rho

[Rhoda Collins]

LOL! Love your "no" at the end! I have to remember this 'corrupt' idea if this ever happens. Good grief tho!

do 'they' ever bring a recorder?? I always wondered that....
Rho

[Brenda Rogers]

I have one client who does bring a recorder. He makes no secret of it, informs o/c in his confirming letter that he'll be using it and cites the rule that allows him to do so. I treat his depositions the same way I do a video dep -- word for word. He wants all the false starts and interruptions (even his own) reflected as they occurred. Nice thing is he knows it's a total PITA and takes extra time to do that. He's told me to charge extra for it -- "Cost of doing business." Who am I to argue? ;)