BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1352|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1352
Author: Levine (D)
Amended: 6/26/13 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 7-0, 6/11/13
AYES: Evans, Walters, Anderson, Corbett, Jackson, Leno, Monning
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 70-0, 5/16/13 (Consent) - See last page for
vote
SUBJECT : Courts: destruction of court records
SOURCE : Judicial Council of California
DIGEST : This bill authorizes the destruction of various court
records earlier than permitted under existing law, deletes
records retention provisions for records no longer maintained by
the court (such as coroner's inquest records), and establishes
records retention periods for records that are not specifically
addressed under existing law. The record retention periods
apply to all court records currently in existence, as well as
future records. The bill authorizes the clerk of the court to
use electronic or other technological means to generate
certified copies of court records if the means adopted by the
court reasonably ensure that the certified copy is a true and
correct copy of the original record, or of a specified part of
the original record.
CONTINUED
AB 1352
Page
2
ANALYSIS :
Existing law:
1.Provides that trial courts may create, maintain, and preserve
court records, other than court reporter's transcripts, in any
form of communication, including paper, optical, electronic,
magnetic, micrographic media, or other technology, if the form
satisfies rules adopted by the Judicial Council, as specified.
(Gov. Code Sec. 68150(a).)
2.Requires the Judicial Council to establish the standards and
guidelines for the creation, maintenance, reproduction, or
preservation of court records, including records that must be
preserved permanently. Among other things, the standards or
guidelines must ensure that court records are created and
maintained in a manner that ensures accuracy and preserves the
integrity of the records, are stored and preserved in a manner
that protects the records against loss and ensures
preservation for the required period of time, and are publicly
accessible and reproducible with at least the same amount of
convenience as paper records previously provided. (Gov. Code
Sec. 68150(c).)
3.Provides that a court record that is created, maintained,
preserved, or reproduced in accordance with the above
provisions must be stored in a manner and place that
reasonably ensures its preservation against loss, theft,
defacement, or destruction for the prescribed retention period
prescribed by statute. (Gov. Code Sec. 68150(h).)
4.Prescribes the manner by which court records may be destroyed
after proper notice, as specified, and after the relevant
statutory retention period has expired. (Gov. Code Sec.
68152.)
5.Allows the courts to extend the retention period for court
records on its own motion or by application of a party or
interested member of the public for good cause shown. (Gov.
CONTINUED
AB 1352
Page
3
Code Sec. 68152(h).)
This bill:
1.Revises and reorganizes the statutory retention periods for
court records to streamline and clarify current retention
periods for specified court records, deletes unnecessary
retention periods, reduces retention periods for certain court
records, and adds retention periods for other records not
previously covered under existing law.
2.Retains the ability of courts to extend the retention period
for courts on its own motion or by application of a party or
interested member of the public for good cause shown.
3.Applies to court records in existence prior to its January 1,
2014 effective date, as well as court records created
thereafter.
4.Makes conforming changes to a cross-reference under existing
law.
Background
In 1994, AB 1374 (Frazee, Chapter 1030, Statutes of 1994)
authorized trial courts to preserve court records
electronically, but did not authorize those courts to create or
maintain electronic court records. That issue was addressed in
2010 when AB 1926 (Evans, Chapter 167, Statutes of 2010)
authorized trial courts to create, maintain, and preserve court
records in electronic form, as specified. Both of those bills
sought to conserve court resources by facilitating the move to
electronic records.
Similarly, this bill seeks to further reduce storage costs by
permitting courts to destroy certain records earlier than is
permitted under existing law, both with respect to future paper
records and those that are already in existence. This bill also
seeks to reorganize and streamline current retention periods,
delete certain retention periods, and provide new, specific,
retention periods for court records not previously addressed
under existing law.
Prior Legislation
CONTINUED
AB 1352
Page
4
AB 1926 (Evans, Chapter 167, Statutes of 2010) See Background.
This bill also required the Judicial Council to establish
standards and guidelines for the creation, maintenance,
reproduction, or preservation of court records and also provided
that documents electronically signed, subscribed, or verified
would have the same validity and legal force and effect as paper
documents.
AB 1374 (Frazee, Chapter 1030, Statutes of 1994) See Background.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/28/13)
Judicial Council of California (source)
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office, the
courts spend more money than is necessary on records retention.
This legislation refines record retention periods in order to
save courts money in a non-controversial way. AB 1352
authorizes the destruction of various court records earlier than
is permitted under existing law, which will enable the trial
courts to reduce their storage costs. In addition, the bill
establishes statutory records retention periods for new types of
records that are not dealt with under existing law-such as
records resulting from the new criminal realignment process.
The amendments will also clarify that the clerk of the court may
use technology to generate certified copies of court records.
Finally, the bill will result in the main records retention
statute, being organized in a more logical, readable, and
understandable manner.
The sponsor of this bill, the Judicial Council of California,
adds that, "implementation of AB 1352 will allow courts to
efficiently and effectively manage court records and ensure that
courts are not burdened by excessive record storage costs in
this time of severe budget reductions to court operations which
jeopardize access to justice for all Californians while still
preserving the public's access to records when necessary."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 70-0, 5/16/13
CONTINUED
AB 1352
Page
5
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Ammiano, Atkins, Bigelow, Bloom,
Blumenfield, Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford, Brown, Ian
Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chávez, Chesbro, Conway, Cooley,
Dahle, Daly, Dickinson, Donnelly, Fong, Fox, Frazier, Garcia,
Gatto, Gomez, Gordon, Gorell, Gray, Hagman, Hall, Harkey,
Roger Hernández, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Linder, Logue,
Lowenthal, Maienschein, Mansoor, Medina, Mitchell, Mullin,
Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Nestande, Olsen, Pan, Patterson, Perea,
V. Manuel Pérez, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Rendon, Salas, Skinner,
Ting, Torres, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wieckowski, Wilk,
Williams, Yamada, John A. Pérez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Allen, Buchanan, Eggman, Beth Gaines, Grove,
Holden, Melendez, Morrell, Stone, Vacancy
AL:ej 7/1/13 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED