Judgment calls on what to clean up

[Kerry F]

How do you decide when and how much to clean up on non-videos on a witness?

If you have a witness that swallows or doesn't say a lot of little connecting words, just speaks that way,

but they are an intelligent business man or woman, should you put in those little words?

Otherwise, if it's the first job you've taken for a reporting firm or for that attorney, they'll think it was

a sloppy transcribing job, won't they?

I've had several of these lately. 

[Marge Teilhaber (TILE hobber)]

I'm doing a crappy non-video accident case right now, also first job for an agency.  I'm putting in every interruption because there were tons and to just show one cut-off where the Q makes no sense when there were tons of others, it's not an accurate reflection and I'm showing all.

In your case there's a lot of missing articles, when you say connecting words.  I'd probably assume they're there and throw them in.  If you slowed the audio down a lot slower than audiosynch allows, the words are probably there.  

[Eric Gilliam]

I've noticed that when I slow the audio down dramatically those little words I thought weren't spoken were actually said, they were just slurred together with the next word.  It seems like more and more people are speaking much faster and more sloppily.  Or maybe I'm just getting older and crankier (LOL). 

[Kerry F]

No, these little words mostly aren't said in what I'm talking about, they just omit them, and use the wrong verbs and form, i.e., ing instead of ed, etc cetera.  And he also just plain doesn't say some of the bigger words, when it's obvious what word he meant to say.

[Eric Gilliam]

I would leave it exactly as I heard it, especially if I have audio to back me up.  We are supposed to be reporting it verbatim, after all.  Sometimes when it might look like I misheard something and I know I didn't mishear it, I will surround it with quotes.  Also on very rare occasions I will use '(sic)' but only as a last resort.  Don't forget there were other people in the room who heard this witness, and they might have noted the witness's speaking style as well and may even be expecting to see it in the transcript.   

[Mary Ann Payonk]

Kerry, most people are totally unaware of how UNarticulate they are when they speak -- even those attys you work with who will agree with that sentiment.  "Oh, yes, - most people are totally unaware."  Then they turn around and stutter and sputter and dash off their interrupted thoughts, change tenses midsentence and worse ... make up their own words when they can't think of the right one.  And you're absolutely right that they never think it's them - they blame it on the reporter.  I think it's a shame that litigators are not taught better in law school.  They can teach them the law, but they can't teach them how to lawyer.  Very sad.

M.A.

[Rosalie DeLeonardis]

I always leave the witness as they speak, and like you I have had some really horrible witnesses in the last two weeks.  I have one trancript I'm starting today where the witness said "um" for  every single answer for 85 pages, along with "um" in the middle of his answers.  I normally don't put them in, but I'm going to on this one just because of the situation.

[Martha R]

If I am in a generous mood I will insert the other half of the word that the attorney didn't speak to make the record look better.  But, for instance, I had a Korean attorney who spoke broken English throughout and I'm not about to touch that with a ten-foot pole.  It was so massively bad I wouldn't know where to begin.

But I wouldn't change a thing a witness said.

[Kerry F]

I NEVER put in um's.........I use uh-huh and huh-uh though.  Sometimes I'll put in a "humm" like they're thinking.

My point is, I once had a firm owner point out to me that sometimes on witness you just need to put in some of the words omitted even on a witness, unless they're a really illiterate witness.  Otherwise, the attorneys do think

the reporter did a bad job and you get a bunch of corrections back from the witness when he reads.

Now, a video............all bets are off.  They get what they said.

[Rosalie DeLeonardis]

You're right, Kerry, I never put in um's either, same as when the attorneys constantly say okay, but this situation is totally different and I think if I don't put them it won't reflect how the deposition was going. 
The witness on every single question would start "um, I think, um, that's a tricky question. Even the attorney was getting irritated because of it, so I think I really need to reflect how the witness actually was. 

[Kellie Zollars]

Hi, Kerry

I would put everything the witness says the way he says it.  If you want to cover yourself, put a blurb on the worksheet when you send in the job. I do like the suggestion of slowing down the audio to see if you can hear it, though. 

We have many different languages spoken in our area so we commonly have transcripts go out without all the "little words" in between.  I do clean up attorneys a tiny bit, but I change very little because that's the question the witness answered.  I leave in the "okay" or the "so" at the start of every sentence if that's what they do.   

If you'd seen a recent email that all reporters received from one of the firms I work with, you wouldn't want to add or change a thing. Opposing counsel and his client called the CSR Board (CA).  One complaint was the reporter didn't put it on the record when copies were brought in and atty said "how many copies did you make" and admin answered three. Something many seasoned reporters assume they don't want on the record and leave out. The other complaint was he/she didn't write down what was being said when the witness and counsel were whispering to each other (I assume no parenthetical either but I don't know for certain). They also sent a letter to the reporting firm asking she not be sent to any other depositions in that case.  Of course they probably have their own agenda to get the transcript disqualified, but I am leaving everything in and using fewer "editorial" parentheticals like (witness reviews document) because of this.  

All that being said, we can't win either way - they'll use whatever tactics they can to win a case.         

[Kerry F]

Kellie,

Good info.  But there's the other side too, attorneys who will get upset looking like idiots even though it's a video.

I like a friend of mine's rule.  If they just say "one" word, like   Q.  So -- well, let me ask you this, I leave of the one word.  Or stutters.   They say:  Did you go to the -- to the -- to this store?  I'd clean that up, even on a video, unless it's all over the place.  Unless the guy just really talks this bad all the time. 

I had a job this morning, witness faster than sh*t and mumbled.  There' so many little words that I don't know what he said, but I have to put something where he made a sound, right?

But I do put in all the comments, jokes, side discussions, during a video and parentheticals when necessary.

[Martha R]

I never put "Witness reviewed document."   For all I know he's just staring at the table.   But I know a lot of reporters do it.   I usually put all that crap in "One copy or two?"  Because, sheesh, you never know.     If counsel and witness whispers I usually put (Off the record discussion.)   Sometimes I will tell them I am not getting it to put on the record, especially if I can hear a word or two.   That will clue opposing counsel to either agree or state that it needs to be on the record or counsel needs to take a break or something.