Filed: Mar. 30, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 30, 2016
Summary: ORDER THOMAS B. SMITH , Magistrate Judge . On November 9, 2015, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiff's motion titled "Starbucks and Their Lawyers Tampered and Falsified Starbucks Partner Resource Reports Then They Submitted as Evidence for the Trial and During the Pretrial Meeting they Committed Professional Misconduct" (Doc. 70). Plaintiff ordered a copy of the hearing transcript (Doc. 102), which is contained at Doc. 104 and has not yet been made available to the general public. Plaintif
Summary: ORDER THOMAS B. SMITH , Magistrate Judge . On November 9, 2015, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiff's motion titled "Starbucks and Their Lawyers Tampered and Falsified Starbucks Partner Resource Reports Then They Submitted as Evidence for the Trial and During the Pretrial Meeting they Committed Professional Misconduct" (Doc. 70). Plaintiff ordered a copy of the hearing transcript (Doc. 102), which is contained at Doc. 104 and has not yet been made available to the general public. Plaintiff..
More
ORDER
THOMAS B. SMITH, Magistrate Judge.
On November 9, 2015, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiff's motion titled "Starbucks and Their Lawyers Tampered and Falsified Starbucks Partner Resource Reports Then They Submitted as Evidence for the Trial and During the Pretrial Meeting they Committed Professional Misconduct" (Doc. 70). Plaintiff ordered a copy of the hearing transcript (Doc. 102), which is contained at Doc. 104 and has not yet been made available to the general public. Plaintiff has filed numerous motions in which she argues that the transcript has been altered, tampered, and falsified by either the court reporter, the Court, Defendant, or Defendant's counsel (Docs. 111, 112, 113, 114, 116). The Court reviewed Plaintiffs' motions and alleged errors, compared the text of the transcript from the November 9, 2015 hearing with the digital audio recording of the hearing, and found that the transcript is an accurate account of what was said in the hearing (Doc. 116). In reviewing the transcript the Court found several insignificant errors, mostly consisting of minor scrivener's errors or errors related to stuttering, duplicate words due to breaks in speech, a missing conjunction (such as "and") at the beginning of a sentence, or statements that were cut-off and changed by the speaker, often mid-word. The court reporter was directed to correct the noted errors prior to making the transcript available to the public (Id. at 3).
This matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff's motion arguing that the corrected transcript was altered, tampered, and falsified (Doc. 122).1 Plaintiff's motion sets forth approximately six pages of alleged errors in the corrected transcript. I have reviewed the corrected transcript attached to Plaintiff's motion and compared it to the transcript that I noted errors for the court report to correct (Doc. 116-1). The court reporter did not correct the error on page 12 of the transcript (Doc. 116-1 at 12). With this exception, the court reporter made every correction. Plaintiff's remaining arguments are therefore without merit.
Now, Plaintiff's motion (Doc. 122) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The court reporter is DIRECTED to correct the error noted on page 12 of Doc. 116-1 before making the transcript available to the public. In all other respects, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED.
