Just giving some info to compare court transcripts and work product.
Work product is defined as:
work product n. the writings, notes, memoranda, reports on conversations with the client or witness, research, and confidential materials which an attorney has developed while representing a client, particularly in preparation for trial. A "work product" may not be demanded or subpenaed by the opposing party, as are documents, letters by and from third parties and other evidence, since the work product reflects the confidential strategy, tactics and theories to be employed by the attorney.
All right is a court transcript a work product?
Is a court transcript a document that is writings, notes, memoranda, writings, notes, memoranda, reports on conversations with the client or witness, research, and confidential materials which an attorney has developed while representing a client, particularly in preparation for trial.?
No it is not, it does not consist of writings, notes, memoranda, reports on conversations with the client or witness, research, and confidential materials which an attorney has developed while representing a client, particularly in preparation for trial, IT IS THE TRIAL.
A court transcript can be demanded or subpenaed by the opposing party, as are documents, letters by and from third parties and other evidence, since the court transcript reflects the public actions in an open court.
Please provide either federal statute or case law that supports your arguement or provides a court reporter copyright protection? Otherwise you can live on that river from egypt.
By the way, when I purchased my transcript it was sent through e-mail which means that your argument that a signed transcript cannot apply. You cannot e-mail a signatured and certified transcript.
Finally, just think of common sense, a document paid by the courts to be produced must remain the property of the court. The court paid the court reporter to perform their work, thus the court retains ownership and it cannot be transferred to a private citizen.
LETS ADDRESS SOME THINGS here is a objective manner:
One, a court reporter is paid by the court to take down the record. This is the same as a newspaper reporter, thus as long as you give proper credit to the reporter and do not attempt to pass it as your own, you are free to disseminate the information under 1st amendment protection.
Two, as stated, the court reporters take only notes of court proceedings, and thus do not create the original product. They are NOT authors, the attornies and the court judges are.
Three, I argued a case in court myself, and I was not notified that I would have to acquire my own court reporter in order to own what is essentially my words and thoughts. It has been the history of this nation that as long as a court record is not sealed or a gag order is in place that anything that occurs in court is public knowledge and property, period.
Fourth, the real stupidity should not neccessarily be place on the reporters, the real stupidity was the idea of using independent contractors to prepare court transcripts in the first place. And having idiotic legislatures making up the totally incorrect assumptions that they can convey copyright protections on public records. This area is in the jurisdiction of the court, or judiciary.
The legislatures are overstepping their authority regarding the independece of the 3 forces of government that have the power over their area of responsibiltiy. The Executive enforces laws and policy as well as represents the state or U.S.. THe legislative writes laws and policies that are to be enforced they determine by the executive. The judiciary is there to interpret laws or examine constitutionality by the legislative or enforcement by executive branches. No one of the three can impair the any of the other three of their independent ability to perform their responsibility.
Since the judiciary requires that all actions unless sealed or put in a gag order must be availible to the public, the legislative acts are unconstitutionally preventing the judiciary from performing what is the most important task they must perform. This is because in order for those to recieve due process of law, they must be able to access any records relating to their issues in court so as to ensure that the parties are treated equally under the law, which is the Vth and XIVth amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Steven M. Goldstein.
Court Transcripts are not Work Product
Hello all,
Just giving some info to compare court transcripts and work product.
Work product is defined as:
work product n. the writings, notes, memoranda, reports on conversations with the client or witness, research, and confidential materials which an attorney has developed while representing a client, particularly in preparation for trial. A "work product" may not be demanded or subpenaed by the opposing party, as are documents, letters by and from third parties and other evidence, since the work product reflects the confidential strategy, tactics and theories to be employed by the attorney.
All right is a court transcript a work product?
Is a court transcript a document that is writings, notes, memoranda, writings, notes, memoranda, reports on conversations with the client or witness, research, and confidential materials which an attorney has developed while representing a client, particularly in preparation for trial.?
No it is not, it does not consist of writings, notes, memoranda, reports on conversations with the client or witness, research, and confidential materials which an attorney has developed while representing a client, particularly in preparation for trial, IT IS THE TRIAL.
A court transcript can be demanded or subpenaed by the opposing party, as are documents, letters by and from third parties and other evidence, since the court transcript reflects the public actions in an open court.
Just my 2 cents worth
in response to KL Re: Re: Re;
Hello KL,
Please provide either federal statute or case law that supports your arguement or provides a court reporter copyright protection? Otherwise you can live on that river from egypt.
By the way, when I purchased my transcript it was sent through e-mail which means that your argument that a signed transcript cannot apply. You cannot e-mail a signatured and certified transcript.
Finally, just think of common sense, a document paid by the courts to be produced must remain the property of the court. The court paid the court reporter to perform their work, thus the court retains ownership and it cannot be transferred to a private citizen.
Court Reporters work product are public property
LETS ADDRESS SOME THINGS here is a objective manner:
One, a court reporter is paid by the court to take down the record. This is the same as a newspaper reporter, thus as long as you give proper credit to the reporter and do not attempt to pass it as your own, you are free to disseminate the information under 1st amendment protection.
Two, as stated, the court reporters take only notes of court proceedings, and thus do not create the original product. They are NOT authors, the attornies and the court judges are.
Three, I argued a case in court myself, and I was not notified that I would have to acquire my own court reporter in order to own what is essentially my words and thoughts. It has been the history of this nation that as long as a court record is not sealed or a gag order is in place that anything that occurs in court is public knowledge and property, period.
Fourth, the real stupidity should not neccessarily be place on the reporters, the real stupidity was the idea of using independent contractors to prepare court transcripts in the first place. And having idiotic legislatures making up the totally incorrect assumptions that they can convey copyright protections on public records. This area is in the jurisdiction of the court, or judiciary.
The legislatures are overstepping their authority regarding the independece of the 3 forces of government that have the power over their area of responsibiltiy. The Executive enforces laws and policy as well as represents the state or U.S.. THe legislative writes laws and policies that are to be enforced they determine by the executive. The judiciary is there to interpret laws or examine constitutionality by the legislative or enforcement by executive branches. No one of the three can impair the any of the other three of their independent ability to perform their responsibility.
Since the judiciary requires that all actions unless sealed or put in a gag order must be availible to the public, the legislative acts are unconstitutionally preventing the judiciary from performing what is the most important task they must perform. This is because in order for those to recieve due process of law, they must be able to access any records relating to their issues in court so as to ensure that the parties are treated equally under the law, which is the Vth and XIVth amendment of the U.S. Constitution.