BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2612
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 24, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mike Feuer, Chair
AB 2612 (Achadjian) - As Amended: March 29, 2012
SUBJECT : COURTS: WITNESS FEES FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYEE ATTENDANCE
KEY ISSUE : SHOULD THE DEPOSIT OWED TO A PUBLIC ENTITY WHEN ITS
EMPLOYEE IS SUBPOENAED BE INCREASED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN
TWENTY-FIVE YEARS TO REFLECT THE INCREASE IN COSTS SINCE THAT
TIME?
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.
SYNOPSIS
This bill seeks to increase the amount that parties to a legal
proceeding must deposit with public entities when a specified
employee is required to remain in attendance in court pursuant
to a civil subpoena. Under current law, when a party requests a
peace officer, firefighter, state employee, or county employee
to appear at a civil trial, the party must reimburse the
employee for costs associated with the appearance - including
salary, travel, expenses, administrative costs, and benefits.
In order to secure the reimbursement, at least in part, the
subpoenaing party must currently deposit a $150 witness fee when
issuing a subpoena. This deposit fee has not been increased
since 1986, despite the increase in salaries and travel expenses
since that time. According to the author, the average cost of
such appearances hovers around approximately $400. This bill
seeks to increase the deposit amount for public employee civil
trial attendance one hundred percent, from $150 to $300 per day,
in order to better reflect the current average cost to the
public entity.
Consumer Attorneys is opposed to the measure unless it is
amended to an amount which is less than the proposed one hundred
percent increase from the existing amount. They state they are
concerned that access to justice will be harmed by such a large
proposed increase in the deposit, noting that this proposed
AB 2612
Page 2
increase in "up front" costs to go to court must be considered
in the context of the escalating burden of fees and deposits
that has occurred across the board in the past few years.
The Committee may thus wish to explore with the author and the
opponent if there is some amount between the proposed one
hundred percent increase and the current deposit fee of $150
that may meet the author's objective of increasing the CSD and
also address the opponent's concerns about its potential impact
on access to justice.
SUMMARY : Seeks to increase the amount of the deposit owed by
parties who subpoena public employees to attend a civil trial
one hundred percent in order to more reasonably reflect the
current cost to the public entity. Specifically, this bill
seeks to increase the amount that a party must deposit with a
public entity when the party requests a peace officer,
firefighter, state employee, or county employee to appear in
civil court pursuant to a civil subpoena from $150 to $300.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides for subpoenaing the attendance of certain public
employees, including peace officers and firefighters, with
regard to events or transactions they have perceived or
investigated in the course of their duties, and for the
payment and reimbursement of the public employee's
compensation and traveling expenses. (Government Code Section
68097.2.)
2)Requires the party at whose request the subpoena is issued to
reimburse the employing public entity for these costs by
tendering the amount of $150 to the person accepting the
subpoena for each day the public employee is required to
remain in attendance pursuant to the subpoena. (Government
Code Section 68097.2.)
3)Requires the public entity to refund any excess amount paid,
and the party at whose request the subpoena is issued to pay
any shortfall, relative to the actual expenses incurred by the
public entity in connection with the public employee complying
AB 2612
Page 3
with the subpoena. (Government Code Section 68097.2.)
COMMENTS : This bill seeks to provide an increase in the court
subpoena deposit (CSD) in order to better keep pace with
increases of salaries and travel expenses for public entities.
There has not been an increase in the $150 CSD deposit since
1986. In support of the measure, the author states:
ÝT]he $150 court subpoena deposit has not been increased
since 1986 even though salaries and travel expenses have
increased dramatically since then. ÝThis bill will]
increase the deposit amount from $150 to $300 per day, to
reflect a reasonable amount to cover the current costs to
the public entity.
The Court Subpoena Deposit Has Not Been Increased Since 1986;
The Issue Appears to Be What Amount of Increase Is Appropriate :
After making several increases in the CSD between 1963 and 1986,
the CSD has not been increased since that time. According to
the author, this gap of more than 25 years represents a
significant gap between the increased expenses associated with
the specified employees appearing in court and the amount of
reimbursements made to their public agencies.
The Legislature has previously recognized the need to increase
the CSD to keep pace with increased expenses by public entities.
In 1963, the CSD stood at $25. However, this was increased to
$45 in 1969, $75 in 1974, $125 in 1980, and finally up to $150
in 1986. In light of those relatively higher increases in
earlier years, proponents suggest that the proposed increase in
the CSD rate to $300 per day appears more than reasonable.
Amidst our current financial climate and the increasing strains
on public entities, proponents assert this modest increase in
the CSD represents a long overdue step to help public entities
better afford the costs of their employees required to attend
civil trials.
Opponents Suggest that This Proposed Increase in This Bill Must
Be Considered in the Broader Context of the Many Other Fee
Increases that Have Occurred in the Court System in Recent
Years : Consumer Attorneys of California opposes this measure
AB 2612
Page 4
unless it is amended to a lesser amount than the one hundred
percent proposed increase in the CSD. They write in part:
We are concerned that access to justice will be harmed by
the suggested increase in the deposit. People who have been
harmed and are seeking justice should be able to go to
trial based on the merits, not based on the escalating
burden of fees and deposits. For example, the fee for
filing an ordinary civil case is now $395, the surcharge
for a complex case is $550, there is a $78 charge for the
telephonic appearances, and there is a $150 jury fee
deposit. This year, the Governor's budget assumes that
there will be $50 million in increased fees and deposits,
all imposed on civil litigants. This is on top of a series
of constant fee hikes in the last few years. We have been
working with the civil defense attorneys and the
Administrative Office of the Courts to attempt to find a
way to raise this enormous amount. Civil litigants have
been on the front lines of fighting for adequate funding
for the courts and have been more than willing to absorb
fee increases. However, as each new fee or deposit is
imposed, we must keep in mind the cumulative effect it has
on the ability of people to get their day in court.
The Committee may thus wish to explore with the author and the
opponent if there is some amount between the proposed one
hundred percent increase and the current deposit fee of $150
that may meet the author's objective of increasing the CSD and
also address the opponent's concerns about its potential impact
on access to justice.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : In support, the California Highway Patrol
(CHP) states:
ÝThe] increase Ýproposed by this measure] allows public
entities to recover more of the cost up front decreasing
the need for these agencies to spend time and effort with
the collection process. AB 2612 would benefit all public
entities involved with the civil subpoena deposit process.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
AB 2612
Page 5
Support
California Highway Patrol (CHP)
Opposition (unless amended)
Consumer Attorneys of California
Analysis Prepared by: Drew Liebert & Zachary Baron / JUD. /
(916) 319-2334