The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been
prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
See United States v. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
ANTOINE v. BYERS & ANDERSON, INC., et al.
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for
the ninth circuit
No. 91-7604. Argued March 30, 1993-Decided June 7, 1993
Petitioner's appeal from a federal-court bank robbery conviction was
delayed four years because respondent court reporter failed to
provide a trial transcript. In his civil damages action against
respondent and her former employer, also a respondent here, the
Federal District Court granted summary judgment in respondents'
favor on the ground that court reporters are entitled to absolute
immunity. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Held: A court reporter is not absolutely immune from damages liability
for failing to produce a transcript of a federal criminal trial.
Respondents bear the burden of establishing the justification for the
absolute immunity they claim, which depends on the immunity
historically accorded officials like them at common law and the
interests behind it, Butz v. Economou, 438 U. S. 478, 508. Since court
reporters were not among the class of person protected by judicial
immunity in the 19th century, respondents suggest that common-law
judges, who made handwritten notes during trials, be treated as their
historical counterparts. However, the functions of the two types of
notetakers are significantly different, since court reporters are
charged by statute with producing a ``verbatim'' transcript for
inclusion in the official record, while common-law judges exercise
discretion and judgment in deciding exactly what and how much they
will write. Moreover, were a common-law judge to perform a
reporter's function, she might well be acting in an administrative
capacity, for which there is no absolute immunity. Forrester v. White,
484 U. S. 219, 229. Because their job requires no discretionary
judgment, court reporters are not entitled to immunity as part of the
judicial function. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409, 423, n. 20.
Pp. 3-9.
950 F. 2d 1472, reversed and remanded.
Stevens, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.