FAQ

Register       Login

YOUR HELP NEEDED: If you find a cross-reference that does not match the rule or subsection it refers to or any apparent clerical errors, please let us know by sending a precise description to SACrtDocs@courts.az.gov.




Current Arizona Rules on Westlaw

Amendments from Recent Rule Agendas

Rule Amendments (2006 to present) 

 

Proposed Local Rules
                


Welcome!

This website allows you to electronically file and monitor court rule petitions and comments and to view existing rules of court, recent amendments of those rules, and pending rule petitions and comments. Any visitor to this site may view posts on this website, but to post a petition or comment you must register and log in. To view instructions on how to register and how to file a petition or comment, please visit our Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page. 

PLEASE READ - CONTACT INFORMATION: 

PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT YOU SUBMIT ALL YOUR CONTACT INFORMATION WHEN SUBMITTING A RULE PETITION OR COMMENT.  OTHERWISE, YOUR SUBMISSION MAY BE REJECTED AND WE WILL BE UNABLE TO ADVISE YOU AS TO WHY. 

     
PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 09 Jun 2020 10:14 AM by  Yolanda Fox
R-20-0013 Petition to Amend Various Rules of Procedure Related to Creating the Verbatim Record of Judicial Proceedings
 111 Replies
Sort:
Topic is locked
Page 1 of 612345 > >>
Author Messages
mmathes
New Member
Posts:1 New Member

--
09 Jan 2020 03:49 PM

    David K. Byers, Administrative Director
    Administrative Office of the Courts
    1501 West Washington St.
    Phoenix AZ 85007
    (602) 452-3966
    mmathes@courts.az.gov

    Would modify several rules of procedure to allow courts to create and maintain a complete and accurate record electronically to supplement court reporters and to modernize language in existing rules.

    Would amend civil, criminal and other procedural rules to supplement court reporters with electronic recording

    Filed January 9, 2020.

    Comment must be submitted on or before May 1, 2020.

    Replies must be submitted on or before June 1, 2020.
    Attachments
    Karla Martin
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    20 Apr 2020 01:45 PM
    • The SKREM Task Force last year was a rushed process and the resulting Final Report, where these suggested rule changes came from, are not in the public interest. The legislative language from the Final Report that was sent to the Legislature this year was dropped. The bill died because of many issues and recognition that this would be a huge disservice to the litigants and to our legal system as a whole. Please vote against any change to the current rules.

    Karla M. Martin, RPR, CSR, CR
    CART Captioning for the Deaf
    and the Hard of Hearing
    24 W. Camelback Road, Suite A-605
    Phoenix, AZ 85013
    602-266-1114
    karla.martin@cox.net

    Dana Valles
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    20 Apr 2020 01:57 PM
    Dana Valles, CCR, RPR
    Coalition of Arizona Court Reporters
    PO Box 1936, Florence, Arizona 85132
    520-866-5715
    dvalles@courts.az.gov


    To Whom It May Concern:

    • I OPPOSE the suggested rule changes. I have been a Certified Court Reporter for over 26 years. I know firsthand that the currently mandated proceedings are just too important to risk to the inherent inefficiencies of ER because property, freedom, and life all depend on a clear and accurate record of the proceedings. Certified Court Reporters have ethical responsibilities in taking down testimony and in the production of the transcripts. These areas are instances where people's lives and liberty are at stake. To rely on electronic recording leaves too many opportunities for error.
    Please vote against any changes to the current rules.


    Thank you very much for your time and consideration in this very important matter.

    Dana Valles, CCR, RPR
    Coalition of Arizona Court Reporters
    520-866-5715
    dvalles@courts.az.gov
    Jill Marnell
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    20 Apr 2020 01:57 PM
    Jill Marnell
    928-713-1036
    jillmarn@cableone.net

    I am in opposition of the suggested rule changes. Certified Court Reporters have ethical responsibilities in taking down testimony and in the production of the transcripts. These areas are instances where people's lives and liberty are at stake. To rely on electronic recording leaves too many opportunities for error. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.
    Christine Bemiss
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    20 Apr 2020 02:17 PM
    Christine Bemiss
    3748 Northstar Dr
    Lake Havasu City, AZ 86406
    928-715-4412
    c.bemiss2@frontier.com

    I am in opposition of the suggested rule changes. The currently mandated proceedings are just too important to risk to the inherent inefficiencies of ER because property, freedom, and life all depend on a clear and accurate record. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.
    I am in opposition of the suggested rule changes. Certified Court Reporters have ethical responsibilities in taking down testimony and in the production of the transcripts. These areas are instances where people's lives and liberty are at stake. To rely on electronic recording leaves too many opportunities for error. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.
    I am against any change to the current rules. The Keeping the Record Committee in 2005 did a thorough study with all stakeholders present regarding what court hearings needed a certified court reporter to preserve testimony and what the best practices were. Nothing has changed since 2005 that would warrant changing the policy determinations previously made by the Arizona Supreme Court. People’s lives and liberty are at stake, and relying on electronic recording to create the record would be a major injustice. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.
    The SKREM Task Force last year was a rushed process and the resulting Final Report, where these suggested rule changes came from, are not in the public interest. The legislative language from the Final Report that was sent to the Legislature this year was dropped. The bill died because of many issues and recognition that this would be a huge disservice to the litigants and to our legal system as a whole. Please vote against any change to the current rules.
    Treva Colwell
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    20 Apr 2020 03:37 PM
    Treva Colwell
    602-506-1126
    tbcolwell@cox.net

    The SKREM Task Force last year was a rushed process and the resulting Final Report, where these suggested rule changes came from, are not in the public interest. The legislative language from the Final Report that was sent to the Legislature this year was dropped. The bill died because of many issues and recognition that this would be a huge disservice to the litigants and to our legal system as a whole. Please vote against any change to the current rules.
    Julie
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    20 Apr 2020 04:24 PM
    • I am in opposition of the suggested rule changes. The currently mandated proceedings are just too important to risk to the inherent inefficiencies of ER because property, freedom, and life all depend on a clear and accurate record. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.
    • Certified Court Reporters have ethical responsibilities in taking down testimony and in the production of the transcripts. These areas are instances where people's lives and liberty are at stake. To rely on electronic recording leaves too many opportunities for error. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.
    • The Keeping the Record Committee in 2005 did a thorough study with all stakeholders present regarding what court hearings needed a certified court reporter to preserve testimony and what the best practices were. Nothing has changed since 2005 that would warrant changing the policy determinations previously made by the Arizona Supreme Court. People’s lives and liberty are at stake, and relying on electronic recording to create the record would be a major injustice. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.
    • The SKREM Task Force last year was a rushed process and the resulting Final Report, where these suggested rule changes came from, are not in the public interest. The legislative language from the Final Report that was sent to the Legislature this year was dropped. The bill died because of many issues and recognition that this would be a huge disservice to the litigants and to our legal system as a whole. Please vote against any change to the current rules

    Julie Ottmar
    3370 N. 7th Street, Ste. 150
    Phoenix, AZ 85012
    602-485-1488
    jottmar@ottmarassoc.com
    Yolanda Fox
    Basic Member
    Posts:158 Basic Member

    --
    21 Apr 2020 08:09 AM
    Kayla Hubanks
    kburgus@hotmail.com

    I am in opposition of the suggested rule changes. The currently mandated proceedings are just too important to risk to the inherent inefficiencies of ER because property, freedom, and life all depend on a clear and accurate record. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.
    JDChurch
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    21 Apr 2020 09:13 AM
    I am against the suggested rule change. The proceedings currently mandated to use a certified court reporter are too important to risk having only electronic recording. A court reporter is professionally trained and certified to report judicial proceedings. Court reporters provide equipment and software at their own expense and have built-in backup systems. They are subject to monetary sanctions and discipline from a licensing board if they do not meet standards. What backup is there for electronic recording and who will be held accountable for failures of equipment and operator error? What recourse is there for litigants who are stuck with a transcript prepared by an untrained, uncertified typist from a recording containing inaudible, overlapping, and indecipherable dialogue? There is no shortage of certified court reporters to cover the currently mandated proceedings. Even in outlying areas, with appropriate planning and scheduling -- just as for attorneys, judges, and essential parties to a proceeding -- a court reporter can be available. Please vote against any changes to the existing rules. Thank you.

    Jennifer Church
    AZ Certified Court Reporter
    Scottsdale, AZ 85254
    church.jennifer568@gmail.com
    480-534-6554
    TMayo
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    21 Apr 2020 09:48 AM
    This effort has failed once and it should fail again. This hurts hard-working taxpayers (court reporters), judges, and people who have trial rights under our constitution. All so a big company that doesn't pay taxes in this state can benefit?

    Sneaking this in again while COVID-19 is in full swing is an affront to our democratic processes.

    Shame on on each of the bill sponsors for re-hashing this highly-flawed procedural change - you are making our democracy weaker with chicanery like this.

    Thomas W Mayo
    Republican
    17490 N 97th Street
    Scottsdale, AZ 85255
    S Pearce
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    21 Apr 2020 10:38 AM
    Shelley Pearce, RPR
    pearceplace5@gmail.com

    I am in opposition of the suggested rule changes. Certified Court Reporters have ethical responsibilities in taking down testimony and in the production of the transcripts. These areas are instances where people's lives and liberty are at stake. To rely on electronic recording leaves too many opportunities for error. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.
    Jennifer Ogaard
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    21 Apr 2020 12:27 PM
    I am strongly in opposition of the suggested rule changes. Certified Court Reporters are highly skilled and have ethical responsibilities in taking down testimony and in the production of the transcripts. These areas are instances where people's lives and liberty are at stake. To rely on electronic recording leaves too many opportunities for error. Think of having to retry a case, summoning witnesses again, jurors, ect. To rely on a machine to capture the record minimizes the importance of the judiciary in its entirety. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.

    Jenny Ogaard, RPR, CRR
    jogaard67@yahoo.com
    11263 South Hopi Drive
    Goodyear, AZ 85338
    Linda S. Christensen
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    21 Apr 2020 12:45 PM
    I am against any change to the current rules. The Keeping the Record Committee in 2005 did a thorough study with all stakeholders present regarding what court hearings needed a certified court reporter to preserve testimony and what the best practices were. Nothing has changed since 2005 that would warrant changing the policy determinations previously made by the Arizona Supreme Court. People’s lives and liberty are at stake, and relying on electronic recording to create the record would be a major injustice. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.

    Linda S. Christensen, RMR, CRR, CRC
    Scribe Enterprises, Inc.
    6817 N 4th Place
    Phoenix, AZ 85012
    linda.scribe.enterprises@gmail.com
    480.226.7766
    Catherine L. Turner
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    21 Apr 2020 03:11 PM
    Catherine L. Turner
    618-444-2045
    catherineturnerrpr@gmail.com
    I am in opposition of the suggested rule changes. The currently mandated proceedings are just too important to risk to the inherent inefficiencies of ER because property, freedom, and life all depend on a clear and accurate record. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.
    Lisa Bradley
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    21 Apr 2020 03:22 PM
    I am in opposition of the suggested rule changes. Certified Court Reporters have ethical responsibilities in taking down testimony and in the production of the transcripts. These areas are instances where people's lives and liberty are at stake. To rely on electronic recording leaves too many opportunities for error. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.
    Lisa Bradley, CSR, RPR, lbradley6@cox.net; 623-398-8892
    Denice
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    21 Apr 2020 04:19 PM
    I too strongly OPPOSE this suggested rule change in anyway. I have been a Certified Court Reporter for almost 32 years in Superior Court in the State of Arizona and this is a gross injustice not only to us as court reporters, but everyone involved in the judicial process. When you try to change things as vital as this, you are changing something that is not broke and you should not in anyway hinder the process that we all strive to uphold and keep.

    thank you for considering my comments and please do not go forward with the suggested changes, thank you.

    Denice Ripple, RPR
    928-402-6864
    dripple@courts.az.gov
    L Thielmann
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    21 Apr 2020 09:07 PM
    I am in opposition of the suggested rules changes. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.
    L. Thielmann, CR, RPR
    llfookes@aol.com
    KarenKahle
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    22 Apr 2020 09:04 AM
    I am opposed to this rule change. I am an official reporter and have been called on many times to cover mental health hearings where there is electronic recording. Yesterday, April 21, 2020, the electricity went out at one of the hospitals and they needed to call a court reporter to cover the hearings. The electronic recording was completely offline from February 25, 2020, through March 11, 2020. Again, a court reporter had to be called in to cover these hearings. There is no backup if the electronic recording fails. I have transcribed many For the Record recordings where a court reporter is not present only to have complete silence on the recording. This rule change was initiated because of a perceived shortage of court reporters. That is no longer the case. There are many court reporters attending schools all across the country. Also, other states have tried to replace court reporters with audio/video recording and it has failed and ended up costing more than any money "saved" by replacing a court reporter. First degree murder trials have had to be redone because of audio/video recording failures. For all of these reasons and many more, please vote no on this rule change.
    Thank you,
    Karen Kahle, RPR
    (520) 724-3015
    kkahle@sc.pima.gov
    Robin O
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    22 Apr 2020 10:19 AM
    I have been a court reporter for 33 years, 17 of which have been in Arizona and 16 in California. I strongly oppose the suggested rule changes. Certified Court Reporters have an ethical responsibility to take down testimony and produce transcripts. These areas are instances where people's lives and liberties are at stake. To rely on electronic recording leaves too many opportunities for error.
    Additionally, the Keeping the Record Committee in 2005 did a thorough study with all stakeholders present regarding what court hearings needed a certified court reporter to preserve testimony and what the best practices were. Nothing has changed since 2005 that would warrant changing the policy determinations previously made by the Arizona Supreme Court.
    Please vote against any changes to the current rules.
    Robin L. B. Osterode, CSR (CA), RPR, CR (AZ)
    rosterode@cox.net
    New River, Arizona
    Wanda Curry
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    22 Apr 2020 03:53 PM
    I am in opposition of the suggested rule changes. The currently mandated proceedings are just too important to risk to the inherent inefficiencies of ER because property, freedom, and life all depend on a clear and accurate record. Certified Court Reporters have ethical responsibilities in taking down testimony and in the production of the transcripts. These areas are instances where people's lives and liberty are at stake. To rely on electronic recording leaves too many opportunities for error. The Keeping the Record Committee in 2005 did a thorough study with all stakeholders present regarding what court hearings needed a certified court reporter to preserve testimony and what the best practices were. Nothing has changed since 2005 that would warrant changing the policy determinations previously made by the Arizona Supreme Court. People’s lives and liberty are at stake, and relying on electronic recording to create the record would be a major injustice. The SKREM Task Force last year was a rushed process and the resulting Final Report, where these suggested rule changes came from, are not in the public interest. The legislative language from the Final Report that was sent to the Legislature this year was dropped. The bill died because of many issues and recognition that this would be a huge disservice to the litigants and to our legal system as a whole.

    Please vote against any change to the current rules.

    Wanda J. Curry
    P.O. Box 2863
    Peoria, AZ 85380
    602.525.2345
    wandajc@gmail.com

    Topic is locked
    Page 1 of 612345 > >>