;gurt of appeals DIV i state c:rwashimgto:-: 

### 20I3HAR 25 mi 8=58

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON LORI S. HASKELL, Appellant,

v. BYERS &ANDERSON, INC., and LAUREL TERRY, Certified Court Reporter, Respondents. NO. 67907-4-1 DIVISION ONE

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

FILED: March 25, 2013 Leach, C.J. — Lori Haskell appeals the trial court's summary dismissal of her claims against a court reporting agency, Byers &Anderson (B&A). Haskell alleges that B&Arefused to provide a copy of a deposition transcriptto her on the
same terms it provided a copy to opposing counsel. In her complaint, she asserted claims for violations ofthe state statute and regulations governing court reporters, various intentional torts, breach of a fiduciary duty, and violations of the Consumer Protection Act, ch. 19.86 RCW. Because the record demonstrates that genuine issues of material fact exist about the terms ofB&A's policy and its application, we reverse the grant of summaryjudgment and remand to the trial

court.NO. 67907-4-1 / 2

FACTS 

### AppellantLori Haskell represented the plaintiffin an underinsured motorist 

### claim against Farmers Insurance Company. Farmers scheduled the deposition of the plaintiffand contracted with B&Ato report the deposition. Laurel Terry, an 

### independent court reporteraffiliated with B&A, provided the reporting service. At the end of the deposition, Farmers' attorney requested that the deposition be transcribed and ordered a copy of the transcript. Haskell also requested a 

### transcript copy. Terry asked Haskell to complete a transcript order/credit card authorization form. When Haskell asked why she had to sign anything when the 

### Farmers' attorney did not, Terry explained that B&A required sole practitioners and some small firms to complete a preauthorization form. Haskell refused to 

### sign any "contract" because of her status as a sole practitioner. Terry notified B&A's billing manager that she hadnot received the completed form and asked herto follow up with Haskell. 

### B&A e-mailed Farmers thetranscript on May 5, 2011.1 On May 5, B&A sent Haskell a letter informing her that it had served the transcript on Farmers and that she and her client had 30 days to come to B&A's offices to review the 

### transcript. B&A's billing manager, Meagan Barron, also called Haskell's office 1 Farmers' attorney worked for a law firm with more than ten years' 

### positive payment history with B&A. In accordance with its stated policy, B&A provided himwiththetranscript, along with aninvoice payable in 30days. -2-NO. 67907-4-1 / 3


### and left a message trying to get payment authorization to release a transcript 

### copy to Haskell. Haskell, who was out of the office for several days, did not receive the messages until May 10. She called B&A to ask why they had not 

### sent her thetranscript. Barron informed her that she needed to "promise topay" 

## forthecopy. Haskell refusedtogivesuch verbal assurance.2 Shealso mailed a demand letter to B&A's Seattle satellite office, threatening further legal action if 

### B&A did not release the transcript.3 On May 17, after several additional unsuccessful attempts to speak with Haskell in person, the manager ofB&A's Seattle and Tacoma offices, Jennifer Anderson, waived the company's "promise 

## to pay" policy and e-mailed Haskell a copy ofthe transcript.4 That afternoon, Haskellfiled this lawsuitagainstB&A.5 B&A moved for summaryjudgmentdismissing Haskell's claims. Thetrial 

### court granted the motion, deciding that B&A's policy did not violate an

2 The record indicates that this conversation ended with Haskell yelling and hanging up on Barron. 

### 3B&Aoperatesprimarily outofits Tacoma office. Thus, itdid notseethis letteruntil May 17, when someone picked upthemailfrom theSeattleoffice. 4In herappellate briefing, Haskell repeatedly complains thatBarron did not have an invoice prepared and that she did not know what the cost of the 

### transcriptwould be. However, therecord contains no indicationthatHaskell ever explained that she based her refusal to provide even a verbal promise to pay upon notknowing the amountcharged. 

### 5 Haskell also moved for a temporary restraining order to force B&A to 

### provide the transcript. The court commissioner denied the motion, noting that Haskell's injury wasself-inflicted by herrefusal topay for thetranscript and that B&A could followwhatever paymentpolicies itchose. -3-NO. 67907-4-1 / 4 

### administrative regulation requiring court reporters to provide their services on "equal terms" to allparties. Haskell appeals. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

### We review summaryjudgment orders de novo.6 Atrial court may grant summary judgment only when no genuine issues of material fact exist and the 

### moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.7 When reviewing a summary judgment order, we engage in the same inquiry as the trial court, 

### considering the facts and all reasonable inferences from the facts in the light 

### most favorable to the nonmoving party.8 Wemay affirm a trial court's grant of 

## summaryjudgmentonanybasis supportedbytherecord.9
ANALYSIS 

### Haskell complains that B&A did not provide its services to the parties on 

### "equal terms" as required by state regulations applicable tocourt reporters. She 

### allegesthatB&Arefused toinvoice herfor acopyofthedepositiontranscriptand that it provided the transcript to Farmers' attorney without contemporaneously notifying her that the transcriptwas available.

6Hadlev v. Maxwell, 144 Wn.2d 306, 310-11, 27 P.3d 600 (2001). 

### 7CR 56(c). 8 Right-Price Recreation. LLC v. Connells Prairie Cmtv. Council, 146 Wn.2d 370, 381, 46 P.3d 789 (2002). 9Steinbock v. Ferry County Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1, 165 Wn. App. 479, 485, 269 P.3d 275 (2011). -4-NO. 67907-4-1 / 5

WAC 308-14-130 requires "[a]ll certified court reporters (CCR) shall. . . [o]ffer arrangements on a case concerning court reporting services or fees to all parties on equal terms." (Emphasis added.) Haskell contends that B&A's practice of requiring some attorneys to prepay for transcript copies while providing direct billing for others violates this standard. B&Aclaims that its payment policy is a legitimate business practice that it applies equally to all attorneys to better assure timely payment. Jennifer Anderson has been an owner and principal of B&A since it was established in 1980. According to Anderson, while the firm once provided transcripts to any party who requested them via COD payment or billing invoice, B&A chose to adopt a new policy to assure its court reporters actually got paid for their services. When itmade this change, attorneys who had an ongoing relationship with B&A or an established positive payment history would remain on the company's direct billing list. Attorneys who had not worked with B&A inthe past or did not have an established positive payment history would be required to provide some guarantee ofpayment before receiving the transcript. Haskell presented evidence that B&A applies its credit policy in a discriminatory fashion, requiring different payment arrangements with sole 

### practitioners. In her declaration, Haskell stated that Terry told her Haskell needed to sign the requested form because she was a sole practitioner. Terry
-5-NO. 67907-4-1 / 6
admits, "I did make reference to the fact that Haskell was a sole practitioner." 

### One can infer from the descriptions of their conversation provided by Haskell and Terry that Terry had no knowledge ofHaskell's prior history with B&A and made no inquiry of Haskell about any prior history with B&A before determining that she
was a sole practitioner and requesting credit card information. For purposes of opposing summaryjudgment, Haskell is entitled to these inferences. These facts and inferences create a sufficient factual dispute about the terms of B&A's credit policy and its application to require a trial. Haskell requests attorney fees for this appeal. However, her request for prevailing party attorney fees is premature. The identity of the ultimately prevailing party cannot be determined at this time. CONCLUSION Because Haskell raised genuine issues of material fact about the terms of B&A's policies for provision of court reporting services and their application to sole practitioners, we reverse and remand. 

## Lt^c^^ O
WE CONCUR: 

# ^/^7Jf VciU^w?,^t

-6-