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