Urban Pacific Equities Corp. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County

Good Law
1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 971·59 Cal. App. 4th 688·69 Cal. Rptr. 2d 635·97 Daily Journal DAR 14415·97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8966
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 26, 1997Docket Nos. 691, B114725California3,039 words

Opinion

Opinion

Vogel, J.

To avoid a court reporter’s $6,500 fee for a photocopy of a deposition transcript that any lawyer could produce in-house for about $150, a party served the reporter with a business records subpoena for the transcript. The reporter and the party who had noticed the deposition moved to quash the subpoena, their motions were granted, and a petition for a writ of mandate was filed with us. We were intrigued and issued an order to show cause but conclude, albeit reluctantly, that a business records subpoena cannot be used in this manner.

Facts

Urban Pacific Equities Corporation and Theodore P. Ihnen sued Steiner & Libo for legal malpractice. In the course of discovery, Steiner & Libo noticed Ihnen’s deposition and requested that he produce at his deposition 109 categories of documents. Over a six-week period, Ihnen was deposed at fifteen sessions, all before a court reporter (Miller & Company Reporters) hired by Steiner & Libo. When asked at the conclusion of the deposition to stipulate that the original transcript could be delivered to Ihnen’s attorney and the court reporter relieved of her duties, Steiner & Libo’s attorney refused. The court reporter offered to make a copy…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.