BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                  AB 2612
                                                                  Page  1


          ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
          AB 2612 (Achadjian)
          As Amended April 30, 2012
          Majority vote 

           JUDICIARY           10-0        APPROPRIATIONS      17-0        
           
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Ayes:|Feuer, Wagner, Atkins,    |Ayes:|Fuentes, Harkey,          |
          |     |Dickinson, Gorell, Huber, |     |Blumenfield, Bradford,    |
          |     |Jones, Monning,           |     |Charles Calderon, Campos, |
          |     |Wieckowski, Alejo         |     |Davis, Donnelly, Gatto,   |
          |     |                          |     |Hall, Hill, Lara,         |
          |     |                          |     |Mitchell, Nielsen, Norby, |
          |     |                          |     |Solorio, Wagner           |
          |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
          |     |                          |     |                          |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           SUMMARY  :  Seeks to increase the amount of the deposit owed by 
          parties who subpoena public employees to attend a civil trial in 
          order to more reasonably reflect the current cost to the public 
          entity.  Specifically,  this bill  increases 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 $275.     

           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.  

          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.  

          3)Requires the public entity to refund any excess amount paid, 
            and the party at whose request the subpoena is issued to pay 








                                                                  AB 2612
                                                                  Page  2


            any shortfall, relative to the actual expenses incurred by the 
            public entity in connection with the public employee complying 
            with the subpoena.  

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  According to the Assembly Appropriations 
          Committee, no direct fiscal impact, as the bill only modifies 
          the amount of the deposit.  Pursuant to current law, differences 
          between actual costs for an employee's appearance and any 
          amounts deposited must be settled up by the public entity and 
          the party who requested the subpoena.
           
          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.  

          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 $275 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.

           
          Analysis Prepared by:     Drew Liebert / JUD. / (916) 319-2334  
           

                                                                FN: 0003792










                                                                  AB 2612
                                                                  Page  3