Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters - Court Reporters, Remote Depositions, Trial Presentation Services

For everything you need to know on court reporters, remote depositions, and trial presentation services.

Need Realtime, Video Streaming and Trial Presentation Services? Look to Thomas & Thomas As Your One-Stop Court Reporting Firm

Over the past ten months, Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters has been providing various court reporting, legal video, and trial presentation services for an arbitration here in Omaha, Nebraska.  Our court reporter, Brianne Starkey, RPR, CRR, CSR (Iowa), has been providing a realtime transcript feed via LiveDeposition to over ten attorneys.  Our legal videographer has also been using LiveDeposition to stream the video from the hearing to participants in various states.  Our Trial Presentation Services Specialist, Geoffrey S. Thomas, J.D., has been presenting exhibits and demonstratives via trial presentation software and creating various clips from videotaped depositions.  Mr. Thomas has also utilized the video from our legal videographer to form clips of what was said throughout each hearing to be used in closing arguments. 

 

Trial Presentation Services Arbitration

Continue reading
11248 Hits

Omaha Court Reporters Transcribe and Provide Realtime Feed for 2016 Berkshire Hathaway Annual Shareholders Meeting

On May 7, Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters was, once again, the preferred court reporting company for the 2016 Berkshire Hathaway Annual Shareholders Meeting. Like in years past, Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters transcribed the Annual Meeting live throughout the day, but this year we added a realtime feed for Mr. Buffett and Vice Chairman Charlie Munger during the question-and-answer portion of the meeting, providing a direct written record of investor and analyst participant questions. Last year’s Annual Meeting drew a crowd of 40,000 attendees. Although no official attendance number has been offered for this year’s meeting, those that have attended the meeting in the past suggested the auditorium was no less full than in years past. This was also the first year the meeting was streamed live online. In the past, cell-phone videos and audio recordings were prohibited, so those curious about the proceedings had to rely on media accounts and amateur transcriptions.

 

omaha realtime court reporter

Continue reading
14175 Hits

Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters Takes Trial Presentation Services to the Johnson County Iowa Courthouse

Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters is preparing to provide trial presentation services for a one-week jury trial at the Johnson County Iowa Courthouse.  In addition to providing trial presentation services, Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters will also be outfitting the courtroom with monitors, a large screen television, and a document camera.  Below is Thomas & Thomas testing the equipment prior to departing to Iowa for trial.  In this particular case, Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters will be providing four monitors (one for each counsel's table and one for each the judge and witness stand), a 50" television for the jury, and a document camera.  We have also installed a blackout switch for the 50" television, which allows us to control what the jury is seeing.  With this setup, the attorneys will be able to show exhibits and videotaped depositions electronically, while still incorporating traditional ways of presenting evidence.  Be sure to contact Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters for all your trial presentation services and litigation support needs.

 

trial presentation services iowa

 

Continue reading
20024 Hits

Important Amendments to Neb. Ct. R. Disc. for Depositions

Important Amendments to Neb. Ct. R. Disc. for Depositions
 
 
 
 
On October 21, 2015, the Nebraska Supreme Court adopted several amendments to the Neb. Ct. R. Disc. §§ 6-3276-3306-331, and 6-332, which became effective January 1, 2016. Several of those amendments specifically affected the court reporter's role in a deposition, including where the court reporter is supposed to be located during telephonic or other remote depositions and the requirement that the court reporter provide an on-the-record statement before the beginning of each deposition.  Below are a couple of those amendments and the practical implications those amendments have on depositions.  For a complete list of the rule amendments, please click the above-referenced link.
 
The first important amendment is to Neb. Ct. R. Disc. § 6-330(b)(7).  This amendment states: 
 
"the parties may stipulate in writing, or the court may upon motion order, that a deposition be taken by telephone or by other remote means. For the purposes of these rules, a deposition taken by telephone or by other remote means is taken at the place where the deponent is to appear to answer questions. Absent a court order or stipulation of the parties, the officer must be in the same location as the deponent." (deletions omitted)  
 
As a leader in the use of technology during depositions, hearings and trials, Thomas & Thomas sees this amendment becoming more and more relevant as more attorneys use other remote means for conducting depositions.  For example, our office has seen an increase in the use of videoconferencing and mobile videoconferencing for deposing people across the state and country.  Not only does videoconferencing and mobile videoconferencing save money, time and effort for attorneys and their clients, but it also allows the court reporter to remain here in Nebraska, thus reducing the cost of the transcript even more.  Plus, with the advent of document cameras and other technologies, conducting a deposition remotely has never been easier.  However, it is important to remember that the presumption is the court reporter must be in the same location as the deponent unless a court order or stipulation of the parties states otherwise.
The next important amendment is to Neb. Ct. R. Disc. § 6-330(b)(8), which is as follows:
 
"(8) Officer’s Duties.

(A) Before the Deposition. Unless the parties stipulate otherwise, a deposition must be conducted before an officer identified by Rule 28 as a person before whom a deposition may be taken. The officer must begin the deposition with an on-the-record statement that includes: (i) the officer's name and business address; (ii) the date, time, and place of the deposition; (iii) the deponent's name; (iv) the officer's administration of the oath or affirmation to the deponent; and (v) the identity of all persons present.

(B) Conducting the Deposition; Avoiding Distortion. If the deposition is recorded nonstenographically, the officer must repeat the items in Rule 30(b)(8)(A)(i)-(iii) at the beginning of each unit of the recording medium. The deponent’s and attorneys’ appearance or demeanor must not be distorted through recording techniques.

(C) After the Deposition. At the end of a deposition, the officer must state on the record that the deposition is complete and must set out any stipulations made by the attorneys about custody of the transcript or recording and of the exhibits, or about any other pertinent matters."
 
This amendment adds a requirement that the court reporter provide an on-the-record statement before and after a deposition is conducted.  Just like Neb. Ct. R. Disc. § 6-330(b)(7), the parties can stipulate away this requirement, if desired.  Without said stipulation, these on-the-record statements will become part of the record.
 
The final important amendment is to Neb. Ct. R. Disc. § 6-330(e), which governs the reading and signing the deposition transcript.  Rule 30(e) now reads as follows:
 
"(e) Review; Waiver; Motion to Suppress.

(1) On request by the deponent or a party before the deposition is completed, the deponent must be allowed thirty days after being notified by the officer that the transcript or recording is available in which (a) to review the transcript or recording and (b) if there are changes in form or substance, to sign a statement listing the changes and the reasons for making them. The deponent may be allowed more or fewer than thirty days if the parties stipulate to or the court orders a different number of days. The officer must note in the certificate required by Rule 30(f)(1) whether a review was requested and, if so, must attach any changes the deponent makes during the period specified above for review.

(2) All objections to the accuracy of the deposition, including objections to accuracy of the interpreter’s interpretation of the questions or answers, are waived if a request for review is not made before the deposition is completed or, if a request for review is made, no changes are submitted to the officer in the time and manner required by subdivision (1) of this rule and no motion is made pursuant to subdivision (3) of this rule.

(3) If a request for review is made, the deponent or any party may move to suppress the deposition pursuant to Rule 32(d)(4) on the ground that the deponent was not allowed to review the transcript or recording as provided in subdivision (1) or that the transcription or interpretation of the deposition is inherently inaccurate."
 
The Comments to Rule 30(e) go on to note that this modification now requires the deponent or party to invoke the right to review before the end of the deposition and gives the deponent or party thirty (30) days to review after being notified that the transcript or recording is available.  This is contrary to the former rule, where the deponent had a right to review unless the right was waived by the deponent and the parties. This modification is important because now the presumption is that the reading and signing of the transcript is waived unless expressly stated otherwise.  Thus, if the right to review is not invoked, then the transcript of the deposition is deemed to be accurate.
 
Although these amendments may not affect the way an attorney prepares for or conducts a deposition, they are important procedural modifications that should be considered when scheduling and conducting a deposition.  
Continue reading
24569 Hits

Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters Provides Trial Presentation Services for $40 Million Jury Trial in San Jose, California

Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters Provides Trial Presentation Services for $40 Million Jury Trial in San Jose, California

Congratulations are once again in order for the Law Firm of Kramer Levin after a $40 million verdict was announced on August 4, 2015 in the Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc. matter.  The verdict followed a three-week trial before the Honorable Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.  The jury found that five of Finjan Holdings, Inc.'s six patents were literally infringed by Blue Coat with the sixth being infringed by the Doctrine of Equivalents.  The jury ultimately decided Finjan was entitled to $39,528,487.00 in damages as a reasonable royalty for Blue Coat's infringement. 

 

I worked closely with Kramer Levin's  legal team of Paul Andre, Lisa Kobialka, James Hannah, and others, to provide a seamless display of exhibits, demonstratives, and videotaped depositions.  With each side limited to only 18 hours to present their cases, a quick, efficient presentation of the case was paramount.  Accordingly, I had to bring in extra trial presentation items to ensure an optimal setup.  I also assisted with the creation and modification of PowerPoint presentations throughout trial.  I was asked to combine trial exhibits and tutorial animations for direct and cross examinations of expert and fact witnesses.  Congratulations to Kramer Levin and its client, Finjan!

 

trialpresentationservices2

Continue reading
27490 Hits

Follow us on Twitter