BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1274
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 30, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
SB 1274 (Committee on Judiciary) - As Amended: March 23, 2010
Policy Committee:
JudiciaryVote:10-0 (Consent)
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill updates existing provisions regarding the electronic
service of court-related documents.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Defines "electronic service" to include both electronic
notification and electronic transmission, as follows:
a) Electronic notification - occurs when a party receives
notification through an electronic message specifying the
exact name of the document being served, and is provided a
hyperlink from which the document may be viewed and
downloaded.
b) Electronic transmission - occurs when a document is sent
through electronic means to an electronic address that has
been provided by the receiving party.
2)Requires the Judicial Council to adopt uniform rules regarding
the integrity of electronic service.
3)Provides that documents cannot be served electronically if
they are required to be served personally. Documents that may
be served electronically, if a party has agreed to accept
service in this manner, include documents which may be served
by mail, express mail, overnight mail, or facsimile
transmission.
FISCAL EFFECT
Minor absorbable costs for the Judicial Council to adopt rules
SB 1274
Page 2
regarding the integrity of electronic service, and ongoing
savings to court operations from efficiencies related to the
likely expanded use of electronic service.
COMMENTS
Background and Purpose . In January 2009, the California Court of
Appeals, 4th District, considered InSyst, Ltd. v. Applied
Materials, Inc., in which a party was electronically given
instructions to access a document on the internet and given a
hyperlink leading to a description of the document. That
description also included an additional hyperlink that opened a
file-stamped copy of the judgment.
Citing a Rule of Court (Rule 2.250(6)), the court said that
"[e]lectronic service is the electronic transmission of a
document to a party's electronic notification address."
(InSyst., Ltd. v. Applied Materials, Inc., at p. 1139.) The
court reasoned that neither Rule 2.250(6) nor Section 1010.6 of
the Code of Civil Procedure authorized a party to electronically
serve another party by providing a hyperlink. Therefore, the
court rejected the defendant's argument and found that notifying
the recipient electronically about the availability of a
document, and including a hyperlink at which the document could
be accessed, would not be considered valid electronic service
under California law.
As a result, current law only authorizes service by the
electronic transmission method, but not the electronic
notification (hyperlink) method. Prior to InSyst, both
electronic transmission and electronic notification were being
used increasingly in civil cases, as they perform the same goal
in a slightly different way. This bill, co-sponsored by the
Judicial Council and the Conference of California Bar
Associations, simply redefines electronic service to include
electronic transmission and electronic notification.
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081