Welcome to CSR Nation
I've never made a post on here yet, mostly just lurked, but today I have a bit of a conundrum and can't find the section of the law I'm looking for. A job that my firm covered on 8/15 was originally a hold by the taking/noticing attorney. On 8/18, the opposing counsel ordered a copy of the transcript. I know there's a section in the regulations where that makes the original noticing attorney now responsible for the O+1, but I can't seem to find the part I'm looking for. If anyone can help point me in the right direction, I would be forever grateful. Thanks!
I don't know the exact law on it, but in the past when the noticing attorney wanted to hold notes but the copy attorney, a few days later or even that day, wanted it transcribed, I would inform the copy attorney he would be charged for the 0&1 rate, which they would always say they understood. You can't produce a copy unless the original was ordered (lucky for us).
My understanding is the same as Rosalie's. If the copy side wants the transcript, he is billed for the O&1.
I second what Rosalie and Janet said. This is true.
Josh, Call the CSR Board, they may be able to help finding a reg. Also, the CA DRA Depo Diplomat is an excellent resource that could help you find your answer. I could've sworn there was a law in CA requiring the noticing party to transcribe and pay for the O&1 unless all parties stipulated to putting it on hold. I remember in the past, when I worked in LA, there were lawyers who were notorious for putting jobs on hold and then subpoenaing reporters into court to read their notes if the case went to trial. Maybe I dreamt this or maybe there was just talk of getting one passed, but I could've sworn a law had been passed to curb that practice. Good luck, Josh. Please post what you find out!
Yes, Josh, if you find out there is a law in CA, please do post. I'm in Northern California/Bay Area and I have never heard of this law in CA before. If I'm doing something wrong, I sure would like to know, even though I have never been questioned by a copy attorney when the 0&1 rate fell to him/her because the noticing attorney wanted a hold notes.