BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 788
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 788 (Wagner)
As Amended April 23, 2013
Majority vote
JUDICIARY 10-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Wieckowski, Wagner, | | |
| |Alejo, Chau, Dickinson, | | |
| |Garcia, Gorell, | | |
| |Maienschein, Muratsuchi, | | |
| |Stone | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Provides that the existing limitation on copying of
court transcripts applies only to computer-readable transcripts.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Provides that any court, party, or person who has purchased a
computer-readable transcript may, without paying a further fee
to the reporter, reproduce a copy or portion thereof as an
exhibit pursuant to court order or rule, or for internal use,
but shall not otherwise provide or sell a copy or copies to
any other party or person.
2)Provides that any court, party, or person who has purchased a
non-computer-readable transcript may, without paying a further
fee to the reporter, reproduce one or more copies or portions
of the transcript for internal use, or in response to a
request for discovery, court order, rule, statute, or
subpoena, but shall not otherwise provide or sell a copy or
copies to any other party or person.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that transcripts prepared by a court reporter using
computer assistance and delivered on a medium other than paper
shall be compensated at the same rate set for paper
transcripts, except the reporter may also charge an additional
fee not to exceed the cost of the medium or any copies
thereof.
AB 788
Page 2
2)Requires the fee for a second copy of a transcript on appeal
in computer-readable format ordered by or on behalf of a
requesting party within 120 days of the filing or delivery of
the original transcript shall be compensated at one-third the
rate set forth for a second copy of a transcript as provided
in Government Code Section 69950. Permits a reporter to
charge an additional fee not to exceed the cost of the medium
or any copies thereof.
3)Requires the fee for a computer-readable transcript to be paid
by the requesting court, party, or person, unless the
computer-readable transcript is requested by a party in lieu
of a paper transcript required to be delivered to that party
by the rules of court. In that event, the fee shall be
chargeable as statute or rule provides for the paper
transcript.
4)Provides that any court, party, or person who has purchased a
transcript may, without paying a further fee to the reporter,
reproduce a copy or portion thereof as an exhibit pursuant to
court order or rule, or for internal use, but shall not
otherwise provide or sell a copy or copies to any other party
or person.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS : Existing law, Government Code Section 69954,
establishes fees that court reporters may charge for transcripts
of court proceedings that they prepare using computer
assistance. Subdivision (d) of Section 69954 limits the right
of a purchaser of a transcript to make a copy, except for narrow
specified purposes, and otherwise bars the distribution or
resale of any copy. According to the author, subdivision (d)
needs to be clarified to reflect the fact that it broadly
applies to "transcripts" in general, although the statute as a
whole, contends the author, was intended to apply only to
computer-readable transcripts.
According to the sponsor of the bill, the California Conference
of Bar Associations (CCBA):
The current version of Government Code Section 69954
was created in 1993 through enactment of AB 1929
(Weggeland). AB 1929 was sponsored by the Attorney
AB 788
Page 3
General to provide a cost-effective means for
Department of Justice attorneys and employees to
utilize computer technology to make notes on trial
transcripts for death penalty and other criminal
appeals, because most court reporters refused to
provide an additional copy of a transcript on computer
disk unless they were compensated for the taking and
preparation of two original transcripts. AB 1929 set a
reduced price for the computer-readable transcript, but
limited the circumstances under which it could be
duplicated. Unfortunately, although the statute was
intended to apply only to computer-readable
transcripts, the language of subdivision (d) is
broader, using only the term "transcripts."
On April 10, 2013, the author amended the bill as an attempt to
clarify subdivision (d) as described, but in doing so set forth
new rules for the reproduction and distribution of non-computer
readable transcripts (i.e., "paper transcripts"). These
additional provisions relating to paper transcripts are a source
of concern among court reporter associations who oppose the
bill.
The California Court Reporters Association (CCRA) contends that
the choice of the term "transcripts" (rather than
"computer-readable transcripts") is deliberate because the
Legislature fully intended the copying limitations imposed by
subdivision (d) to apply to all transcripts, not just
computer-readable ones. In its letter opposing the bill, CCRA
writes:
The reality of court reporters preparing transcripts is
that every transcript and every copy of every
transcript is prepared using a computer and a computer
readable transcript. Government Code Section 69954(d)
was never intended to apply to only those transcripts
that are delivered in computer format; it was intended
to apply to all transcripts prepared by official court
reporters. There is no ambiguity in the existing
legislation. Present law is the best method by which
court reporters can be appropriately remunerated for
exactly what they do. . . The copyright-type
protection the law presently allows was fully vetted at
the time the Legislature added subdivision (d) to
AB 788
Page 4
Section 69954.
This bill applies the limitations of existing subdivision (d)
specifically to computer-readable transcripts. Therefore, the
rules for copying and sharing that apply to computer-readable
transcripts are unchanged by this bill.
Amendments accepted in the Assembly Judiciary Committee on April
16, 2013, significantly narrow the bill with respect to copying
and sharing of paper transcripts (i.e., other than
computer-readable transcripts). The bill now provides that the
purchaser of a paper transcript may, without paying a further
fee to the reporter, reproduce one or more copies or portions of
the transcript for internal use, or in response to a request for
discovery, court order, rule, statute, or subpoena, but shall
not otherwise provide or sell a copy or copies to any other
party or person.
One of the principal concerns the author wishes to address
appears to be to clarify the reproduction of transcripts in
course of civil litigation or where otherwise permitted by law.
According to CCBA, some trial courts have interpreted
subdivision (d) to deny motions to compel production of copies
of paper transcripts. The Assembly Judiciary Committee did not
receive any specific information about examples where trial
courts have denied such motions based on subdivision (d), so it
remains unknown what the true frequency of this problem may be.
Nevertheless, this bill expressly clarifies that the purchaser
of a non-computer-readable transcript may, without paying a
further fee to the reporter, reproduce one or more copies or
portions of the transcript in response to a discovery request,
in addition to a court order, rule, statute, or subpoena.
Analysis Prepared by : Anthony Lew / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
FN: 0000250