BILL ANALYSIS SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE Senator Ellen M. Corbett, Chair 2009-2010 Regular Session AB 1926 (Evans) As Amended April 6, 2010 Hearing Date: June 29, 2010 Fiscal: Yes Urgency: No TW:jd SUBJECT Court Records: Preservation Guidelines DESCRIPTION This bill, sponsored by the Judicial Council, would provide that trial courts could create, maintain, and preserve court records in any form of communication, as specified, if the form satisfies rules adopted by the Judicial Council, as specified. This bill would require the Judicial Council to establish standards and guidelines for the creation, maintenance, reproduction, or preservation of court records. This bill also would provide that documents electronically signed, subscribed, or verified would have the same validity and legal force and effect as paper documents. BACKGROUND The Judicial Council issued a report entitled Modernizing Trial Courts Records Management (the Report), which detailed the need to authorize trial courts to create, maintain, and preserve court records in electronic forms. (See Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts. Modernizing Trial Courts Records Management. 13 Nov. 2009. http:www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jc/documents/reports/ 121509item2.pdf.) The Report recommended allowing trial courts to move away from paper files to electronic files which would significantly decrease court storage costs. The existing trial court records management program was enacted under AB 1374 (Frazee, Ch. 1030, Stats. 1994), which was the last overhaul of the court records management program. Under AB (more) AB 1926 (Evans) Page 2 of ? 1374, trial courts were authorized to preserve court records electronically but were not authorized to create or maintain electronic court records. Thus, trial courts are still required to create and maintain paper court records. This bill would overhaul the current trial court records management program and provide trial courts with the ability to create, maintain, and preserve trial court records electronically, as specified, under procedures and guidelines to be provided by the Judicial Council. CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW Existing law authorizes trial courts to preserve records in any form of communication or representation including optical, electronic, magnetic, micrographic, or photographic media or other technology capable of producing or reproducing the original record according to standards or guidelines adopted by the American National Standards Institute or the Association for Information and Image Management; electronic records of transcripts are governed by the California Rules of Court. (Gov. Code Sec. 68150(a).) Existing law prescribes that no additions, deletions, or changes can be made to the content of the record and records must be indexed for convenient access. (Gov. Code Sec. 68150(b).) Existing law provides that a copy of the preserved or reproduced court record will be deemed the original court record and can be certified as a correct copy of the original record. (Gov. Code Sec. 68150(c).) Existing law provides that a court record preserved or reproduced shall be stored in a manner and place that reasonably assures its preservation against loss, theft, defacement, or destruction for the prescribed retention period; electronic records of transcripts do not require a backup copy unless specified by the California Rules of Court. (Gov. Code Sec. 68150(d).) Existing law provides that a reproduced court record can be disposed of in a manner according to statute. (Gov. Code Sec. 68150(e).) Existing law requires the following types of court records to be preserved on paper, microfilm, or another form of communication AB 1926 (Evans) Page 3 of ? or representation approved by the archival standards defined by the American National Standards Institute for the duration of the record's retention period: (1) comprehensive historical and sample superior court records preserved for research under the California Rules of Court; or (2) court records that are preserved permanently. Court records that must be preserved longer than ten years but not permanently can be reproduced according to statute but must be reproduced before the expiration of their estimated lifespan for the medium in which they are stored pursuant to standards opted by the American National Standards Institute or the Association for Information and Image Management. (Gov. Code Sec. 68150(f).) Existing law requires instructions for access to data stored on any medium other than paper to be documented. (Gov. Code Sec. 68150(g).) Existing law requires each court to conduct a periodic review of the media in which court records are stored to assure the storage medium is not obsolete and that current technology is capable of accessing and reproducing the records. (Gov. Code Sec. 68150(g).) Existing law requires court records to be reproduced before the expiration of their estimated lifespan for the medium in which they are stored pursuant to standards opted by the American National Standards Institute or the Association for Information and Image Management. (Gov. Code Sec. 68150(g).) Existing law requires public access and duplication of court records preserved or reproduced as provided by statute. (Gov. Code Sec. 68150(h).) Existing law authorizes parties to redact social security numbers from documents filed with court in connection with marriage dissolutions, nullities, or legal separations. (Fam. Code Sec. 2024.5(a).) Existing law restricts electronic access to records in the following types of proceedings: (1) under the Family Code, including proceedings for dissolution, legal separation, and nullity of marriage; child and spousal support proceedings; child custody proceedings; and domestic violence prevention proceedings; AB 1926 (Evans) Page 4 of ? (2) juvenile court; (3) guardianship or conservatorship; (4) mental health; (5) criminal; (6) civil harassment proceeding under statute; (7) workplace violence prevention proceeding under statute; (8) elder or dependent adult abuse prevention proceeding under statute; and (9) proceedings to compromise the claims of a minor or a person with a disability. (Rules of Ct. Sec. 2.503.) Existing law defines "retain permanently" to mean original court records must never be transferred or destroyed. (Gov. Code Sec. 68151(d).) This bill would provide that trial courts could create, maintain, and preserve court records in any form of communication, including paper, optical, electronic, magnetic, micrographic media, or other technology, if the form satisfies rules adopted by the Judicial Council, as specified. Until such rules are adopted, the court can continue to use the standards and guidelines for preservation and reproduction adopted by the American National Standards Institute or the Association for Information and Image Management. This bill would exclude court reporter's transcripts and specifications for electronic recordings made as the official record of oral proceedings from this section; such transcripts and records of oral proceedings would be governed by the California Rules of Court. This bill would require the Judicial Council to establish standards and guidelines for the creation, maintenance, reproduction, or preservation of court records. These guidelines would have to ensure that court records are created and maintained in a manner that ensures accuracy and preserves the integrity of the records, protects the records against loss, AB 1926 (Evans) Page 5 of ? ensures preservation for the required period of time, and ensures that electronic documents are publicly accessible and reproducible. This bill would specify that no additions, deletions, or changes can be made to the content of court records, except as authorized by statute or the California Rules of Court. This bill would provide that any notice, order, judgment, decree, decision, ruling, opinion, memorandum, warrant, certificate of service, or similar document issued by a trial court or trial court judicial officer can be signed, subscribed, or verified, and have the same validity and legal force and effect as paper documents, using a computer or other technology in accordance with the procedures, standards, and guidelines established by the Judicial Council. This bill would require a court record that is created, maintained, preserved, or reproduced under this section to be stored in a manner and place that reasonably ensures its preservation against loss, theft, defacement, or destruction for the prescribed retention period prescribed by statute. This bill would provide that a reproduced court record can be disposed of in a manner according to statute unless the record is: (1) a comprehensive historical and sample superior court record preserved for research under the California Rules of Court; or (2) a court record that is required to be preserved permanently; these documents no longer would be required to be preserved on paper, microfilm, or in another form of communication or representation pursuant to archival standards defined by the American National Standards Institute for the duration of the record's retention period. This bill would require instructions to be documented for access to data stored on a medium other than paper. This bill would remove the requirement for documents to be reproduced before the expiration of their estimated lifespan for the medium in which they are stored. This bill would require, unless access is otherwise restricted by law, court records created, maintained, preserved, or reproduced under this bill to be made reasonably accessible to all members of the public for viewing and duplication as the paper records would have been accessible; court records AB 1926 (Evans) Page 6 of ? maintained in electronic form shall be viewable at the court, unless access is otherwise restricted by law, regardless of whether they are also accessible remotely. This bill would redefine "retain permanently" to mean that court records must be maintained permanently according to the Judicial Council's standards or guidelines established pursuant to the provisions of this bill. COMMENT 1. Stated need for the bill The author writes: Sponsored by the Judicial Council of California, this bill seeks to bring California's nineteenth century system of court record preservation into the twenty-first century. Under existing statutes that require courts to preserve paper records, California devotes nearly two million linear feet to storing court records, many of which must be stored at off-site facilities. With existing technology, however, the courts could create and maintain less costly and more efficient electronic versions of paper records. Although courts are now permitted to maintain electronic records (e.g. those that may be submitted electronically) under existing law, they do not have any authority to create official electronic records from the paper records. This bill will give the court that authority, as well as require the Judicial Council to develop standards that will protect the accuracy, integrity, and accessibility of the electronic records. Judicial Council, the sponsor of this bill, writes: The current statute governing the storage and maintenance of trial court records is technologically out-of-date, with the result that courts cannot utilize any electronic storage technology and must instead maintain court records in paper form. In California, a vast amount of storage space is currently devoted to paper files of court records. A survey in 2007 indicated that court records are stored in 276 locations throughout the state (courthouse and off-site facilities), totaling 1,854,992 linear feet. The only other media approved for court records storage in current law is microfilm, a technology which is antiquated and no longer supported by commercial vendors. AB 1926 would amend AB 1926 (Evans) Page 7 of ? Government Code sections 68150 and 68151 to enable courts to modernize the methods of creating, maintaining, and preserving records. Court records in paper form are expensive to create, maintain, access, and preserve. But with the increasing availability of electronic document management systems, courts have an opportunity to realize significant long-term savings if they can convert from paper to electronic records. Authorizing records to be created, maintained, and preserved in electronic forms is practical and makes economic sense. Electronic records can be made available remotely, and such remote access will allow court users greater convenience in accessing records. In addition, electronic records can be stored in multiple locations, making them more robust and less susceptible to loss than paper records. 2. Increased efficiency of trial courts and decreased storage costs This bill would authorize trial courts to create, maintain, and preserve court records in any form of communication, including paper and electronic forms, provided the form satisfies rules to be adopted by the Judicial Council. Since 1994, the Legislature has recognized the need for courts to efficiently preserve court records. (See AB 1374 (Frazee, Ch. 1030, Stats. 1994).) At that time, electronic technology had not reached its current level of sophistication. Since then, the federal court system has enacted its own electronic records management system because of the efficiency of creating, maintaining, and preserving court records through electronic means. As the sponsor argues, it is time to update California's trial court records managements systems as well. In the Report prepared by the Judicial Council on the provisions of this bill, 49 of 58 courts responded to the survey which contributed to the Judicial Council's findings. (Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts, Modernizing Trial Courts Records Management, at pg. 2.) Overall, the courts favored enacting the provisions of this bill because they provide flexibility of records management, will streamline court document processes, and improve overall productivity. (Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts, Modernizing Trial Courts Records Management, at pgs. 26-32.) Further, allowing courts to store trial court records electronically frees up storage space which will reduce court AB 1926 (Evans) Page 8 of ? costs. 3. Judicial Council's role in establishing trial court records management standards This bill would provide that the Judicial Council would be responsible for establishing the rules and guidelines for the creation, maintenance, and preservation of trial court records. The Judicial Council is responsible for creating and maintaining court forms and establishing guidelines for use of these forms. Further, the Judicial Council researched the current trial court records management system and found that it needs to be updated. (See Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts, Modernizing Trial Courts Records Management.) Under existing law, trial court record preservation is regulated by the standards and guidelines adopted by the American National Standards Institute or the Association for Information and Image Management. As one court pointed out in the Report, by authorizing the Judicial Council to establish the standards and guidelines for trial court records management, the guidelines can be tailored to fit California's court records needs rather than a national organization which may not have a strong understanding of California's needs. (Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts, Modernizing Trial Courts Records Management, at pg. 27.) 4. Electronic signatures on trial court records This bill would provide that any notice, order, judgment, decree, decision, ruling, opinion, memorandum, warrant, certificate of service, or similar document issued by a trial court or trial court judicial officer can be signed, subscribed, or verified, and have the same validity and legal force and effect as paper documents. The federal e-file system has established a procedure to electronically sign court filings. Further, business in general is being conducted more and more through the transmission of electronic documents containing signatures. These procedures have been in effect for many years and continue to work effectively. Providing for electronic signatures furthers the efficiency of creating and maintaining court records electronically. 5. Public access to court records This bill would require, unless access is otherwise restricted by law, court records created, maintained, preserved, or AB 1926 (Evans) Page 9 of ? reproduced under this bill to be made reasonably accessible to all members of the public for viewing and duplication as the paper records would have been accessible. Paper files can be lost within court departments and storage facilities. Creating and maintaining trial court records electronically reduces the risk that the public will lose access to court records. Further, as demonstrated by the federal court record management system, court documents may be made accessible remotely through electronic access, which also promotes public access to court records. It should be noted that the bill provides that duplicate court records, made from paper or electronic forms, will be provided to the public "at cost." This provision is important to make certain that fees charged by courts for obtaining these documents does not increase more the actual cost of creating the duplicate records, which could otherwise create a burden on public access to court records. It should be noted that not all court documents are accessible by the public. Family Code Section 2024.5(a) allows parties to redact Social Security numbers from documents relating to marriage dissolutions and nullities and legal separations. Additionally, California Rules of Court 2.503(c) restricts electronic access to certain documents (i.e., criminal, juvenile, and family court). The Judicial Council provides instruction on this provision that these documents often contain sensitive personal information and should not be provided electronically to the public, unless approved by a judge based on extraordinary public interest. (See Rules of Court 2.503(e).) Judicial consideration for these types of cases includes the privacy interests of the parties, the ability of the court to redact sensitive personal information, the benefits to and burdens on the parties in allowing remote electronic access, including possible impacts on jury selection, and the burdens on the court in responding to an extraordinarily high number of requests for access to documents. For these instances, nonconfidential court records, redacted where necessary to protect the privacy of participants in the legal action, may be electronically accessible. Support : None Known Opposition : None Known HISTORY AB 1926 (Evans) Page 10 of ? Source : Judicial Council of California Related Pending Legislation : None Known Prior Legislation : See Background and Comment 2. Prior Vote : Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 10, Noes 0) Assembly Appropriations (Ayes 15, Noes 0) Assembly Floor (Ayes 74, Noes 0) **************