Prewitt v. Mississippi State University

Filing 378

ORDER denying 377 Motion for Correction or Modification of the Case Record. Signed by Louis Guirola, Jr., on 1/7/2013. (BR)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MYRTLE LYNN PREWITT
v.

PLAINTIFF
CAUSE NO. 1:06CV338-LG

MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY

DEFENDANT

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
CORRECTION OR MODIFICATION OF THE CASE RECORD
BEFORE THE COURT is the Motion for Correction or Modification of the
Case Record [377] filed by Myrtle Lynn Prewitt. In her Motion, Prewitt claims that
some words spoken by Charles Winfield, counsel for the defendant, and the
undersigned were omitted from the trial transcript. She claims that the
undersigned used the term “catfight” during the trial, but the term does not appear
in the official transcript. Prewitt did not include the omitted words allegedly
spoken by Winfield in her Motion. Prewitt also states that some words were
improperly highlighted by the court reporter in the transcript. Prewitt asks the
Court to order the court reporter to provide copies of any audio materials that
recorded the trial and to order the court clerk to provide copies of any original notes
and logs made during the trial.
Pursuant to statute, “[t]he transcript in any case certified by the reporter or
other individual designated to produce the record shall be deemed prima facie a
correct statement of the testimony taken and proceedings had.” 28 U.S.C. § 753(b).
“If any difference arises about whether the record truly discloses what occurred in
the district court, the difference must be submitted to and settled by that court and

the record confirmed accordingly.” Fed. R. App. P. 10(e)(1). The record may be
corrected if anything material is omitted. Fed. R. App. P. 10(e)(2).
Apparently, the court reporter explained to plaintiff’s counsel prior to the
filing of the present Motion, that the court reporter had listened to every second of
the trial audio while editing the transcript. While editing the transcript, she never
heard the term “catfight.”

Nevertheless, after the present Motion was filed, the

Court instructed the court reporter to once again review the recorded transcript and
the audio of the trial to determine whether that term was uttered by anyone during
the trial. This includes matters formally on the record and matters off the record
that were captured by the audio recording.
The record confirms that the Court did not use the term “catfight” at any
time during the trial. Prewitt’s recollection, whether the product of mistake or
imagination, in that regard is flawed. In fact, a second exhaustive search of the
transcript and review of the audio reveals that the term “catfight” was never used
by anyone during the trial. What the record does reveal however is that the term
“cat” was used three times by plaintiff’s counsel. He used the phrase “cat’s paw”
twice while discussing an argument between the plaintiff and a co-worker. See
volume 3, page 265 of the transcript at lines 13 and 16. Plaintiff’s counsel also used
the term “cat’s meow” once. See volume 5, page 557 of the transcript at line 3. No
other person even used the term “cat” during the trial. Finally, the record also
shows that the only time the word “fight” or “fighting” was used during trial was
during an exchange between plaintiff’s counsel and the plaintiff during direct
-2-

examination.1
The Court has also reviewed the transcript for terms that may have been
inappropriately highlighted by the court reporter and found none. Quotations were
italicized in certain circumstances, and this was also explained to plaintiff’s counsel
by the court reporter prior to the filing of the present Motion. The Court finds
nothing improper about the court reporter’s decision to italicize quotations.
Prewitt has not adequately rebutted the presumption that the transcript is
correct, and she also has not demonstrated that the alleged transcript errors are
material to her appeal. The Motion is denied.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion for
Correction or Modification of the Case Record [377] filed by Myrtle Lynn Prewitt is
DENIED.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 7th day of January, 2013.

s/

Louis Guirola, Jr.

LOUIS GUIROLA, JR.
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

1

“Q. Let me as you a question. There’s been some talk about a confrontation
between you and another staff member, another person at the forest products lab.
Is it you inclination to be a person who would rather run away than fight?
A. Yes, I don’t like fighting.” See volume 4, page 364 of the transcript at
lines 14-18.
-3-