Opinion
453-17
12-02-2021
Gregory J. Podlucky & Karla S. Podlucky, Petitioners v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent
ORDER
Albert G. Lauber Judge.
This case was tried on October 5 and 7 during the Court's October 4, 2021, Los Angeles, California, trial session. The parties and witnesses appeared remotely via Zoomgov. At the conclusion of trial the Court directed the parties to file simultaneous opening briefs by December 21, 2021, and simultaneous answering briefs by February 21, 2022.
On October 20, 2021, petitioners filed a motion requesting that the Court pay the cost of securing for them a transcript of the trial, alleging that they lacked the funds necessary to pay the cost. We granted that motion on October 29, 2021. The trial transcript, consisting of 457 pages, was posted to the docket record of this case on November 3, 2021.
On November 15, 2021, petitioners requested a 30-day extension of time to file their opening brief. As grounds therefor they represented that they had not yet received the trial transcript and that petitioner husband was "in the middle of various federal court cases." We granted that motion on November 17, 2021.
On November 28, 2021, petitioners filed a Motion for Audio of Trial Proceedings, requesting that the Court "pay the cost of the duplicating of the video and audio" of the trial. As grounds therefor they note that the transcript (which they admit having received) includes instances where two speakers spoke concurrently, as indicated by brackets containing the words "indiscernible, simultaneous speech." Petitioners assert that the transcript for this reason "is not indicative of the trial proceedings," risking violation of their "Fifth Amendment right to due process."
We will deny petitioners' motion. It often occurs at trial that participants speak over each other, and the court reporter typically indicates these instances by the bracketed words used here. The 457-page transcript includes relatively few instances of simultaneous speech, almost invariably confined to a line or two of text. We have reviewed all of these instances, and none of them detracts even slightly from the comprehensibility of the proceedings.
When there are genuine concerns regarding the accuracy of a trial transcript, a party is expected to file a motion to correct the transcript, noting specific errors that need correction. Petitioners have alleged no errors of any kind in the transcript. Neither they nor respondent needs an audio or video recording of the trial in order to prepare a post-trial brief.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that petitioners' Motion for Audio of Trial Proceedings, filed November 28, 2021, at docket entry #290, is denied.