BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 223|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 223
Author: Frommer (D)
Amended: 8/20/01 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 7-0, 7/3/01
AYES: Escutia, Ackerman, Haynes, Kuehl, O'Connell, Peace,
Sher
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 76-0, 5/10/01 (Passed on Consent) - See
last page for vote
SUBJECT : Evidence: depositions: forms: discovery
SOURCE : Judicial Council of California
DIGEST : This bill, sponsored by the Judicial Council,
would make numerous clean-up changes to statutes relating
to trial court funding, and would amend various
discovery-related statutes to make discovery practice and
procedure more uniform throughout the state.
ANALYSIS : Existing law differentiates between limited
civil cases and other civil cases in procedures relating to
statements of damages in personal injury and wrongful death
cases; the amounts of filing fees and undertakings for
writs of attachment and by judgment creditors; and the
entry of writs of execution on money judgments.
CONTINUED
AB 223
Page
2
This bill would eliminate the distinctions between limited
and other civil actions in these matters by extending
certain procedures and amounts of certain undertakings
applicable to most civil cases to limited civil cases as
well. This bill also would raise the current amounts for
these undertakings from $7,500 to $10,000.
Existing law contains various provisions computing the time
to respond to service of various documents based on whether
service is made personally or by mail, in which case the
time to respond generally is extended by five days, or ten
days if the place of mailing is outside California.
This bill would amend various sections to achieve internal
consistency in the application of these response deadlines.
Existing law provides that "the court" shall issue
commissions for the taking of out-of-state depositions.
This bill would provide that this essentially clerical
function may be performed by the court clerk.
Existing law requires the Judicial Council to develop form
interrogatories for specified civil actions, and to
formulate and adopt forms and rules of court for litigants
proceeding in forma pauperis.
This bill would clarify the Judicial Council's authority to
develop form interrogatories for other civil actions, and
would make a minor change in the information required on
the form for proceeding in forma pauperis.
Existing law protects an attorney's work product from
disclosure in the discovery process unless the court
determines that denial of discovery will unfairly prejudice
the party seeking discovery. Existing law does not,
however, set forth procedures for hearing disputes
concerning the disclosure of attorney work product.
This bill would amend Section 915 of the Evidence Code to
add claims of attorney work product privilege to the list
of other claims of privilege for which disclosure disputes
are determined under that section.
AB 223
Page
3
Existing law provides that any party to a civil action may
take discovery, including deposition testimony, and
provides procedures for the taking of depositions.
This bill would provide that a non-party deponent may
appear at a deposition by telephone if the court finds
there is good cause and no prejudice to any party. This
bill further would provide that the procedures to implement
this section shall be established by court order in the
specific action or proceeding or by California Rule of
Court.
Existing law provides that certified shorthand reporters
have the power to administer oaths or affirmations to those
being deposed.
This bill would make that power applicable when the
deposition is taken by telephone or other remote electronic
means, as specified.
Existing law generally provides for the taking of discovery
in civil actions, subject to the supervision of the court.
This bill would provide for the use of advanced electronic
technologies, as defined therein, in conducting discovery
in certain cases, if the court finds or if the parties
stipulate that the use of such technology would promote
cost effective and efficient discovery; would not create an
undue economic burden on any person; would not require
undue expenditures of time or money; would not require
parties or counsel to purchase exceptional or unnecessary
services, hardware or software; and promoted open
competition among vendors and service providers to
facilitate the highest quality service at the lowest
reasonable cost.
Existing law provides for various budgetary and court
funding procedures predating, and made obsolete by, the
Trial Court Funding Act. Existing law further vests the
Judicial Council with certain budgetary and allocation
authority, but is silent as to whether any of the authority
may be delegated, or as to whether the Judicial Council may
consider the input of various advisory committees in making
its allocation determination.
AB 223
Page
4
This bill would repeal the obsolete provisions, and would
provide that the Judicial Council may delegate budgetary
activities and recommending authority as it deems
appropriate, and may consider input from other sources when
making allocation determinations. This bill would further
provide that the Judicial Council may restrict or prohibit
a trial court from transferring money from one program to
another.
This bill would require courts and counties to establish
procedures to share budgetary information, as specified.
This bill would also require the Judicial Council to
provide to the Legislature, on December 1, 2001, and yearly
thereafter, court budget expenditure data, as specified.
Existing law provides that all trial court funding from the
Trial Court Trust Fund must be kept by the court in its
Trial Court Operations Fund, which resides in the county
treasury, and may be audited by the State Controller.
Existing law further provides that a court may open a bank
account to hold bail money. The Judicial Council must
obtain concurrence from the Department of Finance and the
Controller to establish a procedure for the use of any of
these funds.
This bill would provide that the Judicial Council may (1)
establish a trial court operations fund separate from, and
superseding, the county-treasury-based Trial Court
Operations Fund; (2) perform audits of this fund; and (3)
establish procedures for the use of the monies in either
the council-established or county-based fund.
Existing law provides that when a trial court desires to
receive services from the county, the presiding judge of
the court may enter into a contract with the county for the
provision of those services. Existing law does not,
however, provide a cap on indirect or overhead costs that
may be charged to the court pursuant to such service
contracts.
This bill would provide that any indirect or overhead
charges be expressly stated and must themselves contain
AB 223
Page
5
items of court operations only.
Existing law provides that cities and counties may recover
for reasonable and necessary expenditures they have made in
connection with crimes committed at state prisons or by
state prisoners.
This bill would add courts to the parties that may recover
for such expenditures made by courts.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/20/01)
Judicial Council of California (source)
California Chamber of Commerce
Civil Justice Association of California
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The Judicial Council of
California, sponsor of this bill, describes it as the
result of a broad and lengthy effort to (1) update code
sections relevant to civil discovery practice, (2)
streamline and make more uniform various civil and court
procedures, (3) appropriately reflect the changes wrought
by the Trial Court Funding Act of 1997, and (4) clarify
and, in certain areas, expand Judicial Council authority
over the trial court funding allocation process.
The sponsor notes that, as appropriate, affected entities
and interested parties, including the California State
Association of Counties, employee representatives of SEIU
and AFSCME, and the State Bar, have reviewed and approved
sections of interest to them in the bill. The sponsor is
unaware of any concerns or opposition to any provision of
the bill.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Aanestad, Alquist, Ashburn, Bates, Bogh, Briggs,
Calderon, Bill Campbell, John Campbell, Canciamilla,
Cardenas, Cardoza, Cedillo, Chan, Chavez, Cogdill, Cohn,
Corbett, Correa, Cox, Daucher, Diaz, Dickerson, Dutra,
Firebaugh, Florez, Frommer, Goldberg, Harman, Havice,
Hollingsworth, Jackson, Keeley, Kehoe, Kelley, Koretz, La
AB 223
Page
6
Suer, Leach, Leonard, Leslie, Longville, Lowenthal,
Maddox, Maldonado, Matthews, Migden, Mountjoy, Nakano,
Nation, Negrete McLeod, Oropeza, Robert Pacheco, Rod
Pacheco, Papan, Pavley, Pescetti, Reyes, Richman, Runner,
Salinas, Shelley, Simitian, Steinberg, Strickland,
Strom-Martin, Thomson, Vargas, Washington, Wayne, Wesson,
Wiggins, Wright, Wyland, Wyman, Zettel, Hertzberg
RJG:sl 8/20/01 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****