Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 23STCP04187, Date: 2025-04-24 Tentative Ruling

24STCP02299  Luchia Tsegaberhan
The Petition will be granted.  A copy of the signed decree will be available in Room 112 of the clerk’s office seven days after the date of the hearing.

Case Number: 23STCP04187    Hearing Date: April 24, 2025    Dept: 86

MOTION FOR ORDER FOR PARTY PREPARED TRANSCRIPTS OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Date:               4/24/25 (1:30 PM)

Case:               Edward Goldbeck, et al. v. Los Angeles Unified School District, et al. (23STCP04187)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioners Edward Goldbeck and Vicky Goldbeck’s Motion for Order for Party Prepared Transcripts of Administrative Hearings is GRANTED.

Petitioners seek permission to use a party-prepared transcript that utilized an artificial intelligence (“AI”) program in its preparation in lieu of a certified court reporter prepared transcript due to the cost and financial burden associated with the latter means for preparation of a transcript.

CCP § 1094.5(a) states in pertinent: “Except when otherwise prescribed by statute, the cost of preparing the record shall be borne by the petitioner.” Local Rule 3.231(g) states:

A record is required for administrative mandamus and for traditional mandamus review of quasi-legislative agency actions. The record in an administrative mandamus case generally consists of the pleadings, all notices and orders, the exhibits, all written evidence, the proposed and final decision, any post decision actions, and any reporter’s transcripts. In cases under CCP 1094.5, the petitioner must ensure that the record is prepared as necessary for the court’s decision. The petitioner may elect to prepare the record or ask the respondent agency to prepare the record. As transcripts are often prepared separately by a court reporter, a petitioner must contact both the respondent agency and the reporter to obtain the complete record. . . . Whichever party prepares the record, the parties must cooperate to ensure timely completion of a record which they agree is complete and accurate. Under . . . CCP section[] 1094.5 . . . , the petitioner bears the cost of preparing the record unless proceeding in forma pauperis …”

CRC, Rule 2.1040 states that, where a party seeks to offer into evidence an electronic recording, that party must lodge with the court a transcript of the recording, and it can be prepared by the party offering the recording into evidence. (CRC, Rule 2.1040(a), (b)(1).)

Here, respondents provided petitioners with what was purportedly the complete administrative record on February 22, 2024, but it did not include the administrative hearing transcript. (Serritella Decl. ¶¶ 4-5.) On February 26, 2024, petitioners’ counsel discovered that respondents had prepared a written transcript of the administrative hearing, and petitioners thereafter paid $678.75 to Kennedy Court Reporters for access to such transcript, which was received on August 15, 2024. (Serritella Decl. ¶¶ 6-7.) The transcript petitioners received, however, was incomplete because it contained only the testimony of two LAUSD witnesses and did not contain petitioners’ hearing testimony or the arguments by counsel.  (Serritella Decl. ¶ 7.) Counsel for petitioners has been informed by Kennedy Court Reporters that the complete transcript would cost several thousands of dollars, which cost respondents have declined to share. (Serritella Decl. ¶ 8.) Due to the cost of obtaining a complete transcript, petitioners chose to prepare their own transcript of the proceedings from an audio recording of the hearings before the hearing officer and Personnel Commission, which petitioner had received on or about October 28, 2024. (Seritella Decl. ¶¶ 5, 9-11.)  Petitioners uploaded the audio recording of the hearings to an AI website, which produced a draft transcript in Word format. (Serritella Decl. ¶¶ 9-10.)  Petitioner Vicky Goldbeck then reviewed the draft transcript while listening for 21 hours of the audio recording to edit and made corrections. (Serritella Decl. ¶11; Goldbeck Decl. ¶¶ 3-5 & Ex. B.)

Respondent LAUSD argues that the pertinent statutes and rules require petitioners to pay for the reporter’s transcript of the proceedings and that the relevant statutes and rules “evidence a strong preference for transcripts prepared by a court reporter.” (Opp at 3-4.)  Notwithstanding this purported “strong preference,” respondent states that it “objects not to Petitioner Vicki Goldbeck preparing a transcript.” (Opp. at 4.)  Rather, respondent objects to a transcript that has been prepared by AI because it “is a rapidly evolving tool and technology and its use in preparing evidentiary transcripts is not well-established.” (Opp. at 4.)  Respondent further posits that there are “known risks” that AI may create “hallucinations,” i.e., “simply invent something that is not true.” (Opp. at 4.)

Respondent’s objection is not well-taken.  It is permissible for petitioners to elect to prepare the record under Local Rule 3.231(g). While transcripts are often prepared by a court reporter for reasons of convenience, accuracy, and reliability, there is nothing under CCP § 1094.5 or Local Rule 3.231 that mandates using a court reporter.  Respondent concedes as much by clarifying that it does not object to petitioner Vicky Goldbeck preparing the transcript from the audio recording in lieu of a court reporter.  (See Opp. at 4.)  Insofar as respondent has concerns about a party preparing a transcript with the assistance of AI, such concern does not support a blanket objection to the transcript as a whole.  Rather, as proposed by petitioners’ counsel in his meet and confer letter, the appropriate approach is for respondent to review the transcript and object to any particular transcription errors. (See Serritella Decl. ¶ 13 & Ex. A.)

Accordingly, petitioners’ motion is GRANTED CONDITIONALLY, subject to the following procedures and deadlines to resolve any particular objections respondents may have to the transcript prepared by petitioner.  By no later than May 23, 2025, respondents shall file and serve any objections to the accuracy of the proposed transcript submitted as Exhibit B to the instant motion.  Each objection shall (1) identify the page and line number of the purported transcription error in the proposed transcript, (2) suggest the specific correction to be made, and (3) state where in the audio recording based on time stamp and other identifying information support for the objection and proposed correction may be found.  By no later than May 30, 2025, the parties shall meet and confer concerning respondents’ objections, if any.  By no later than June 13, 2025, the parties shall jointly submit a status report indicating whether they have agreed upon a final transcript they have certified as accurate or what remaining objections are unresolved.  Respondents’ failure to avail themselves of these procedures shall result in the Court deeming any objections waived and the proposed transcript submitted as Exhibit B to be accurate.