BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
SB 1313 (Nielsen)
As Amended April 21, 2014
Hearing Date: April 29, 2014
Fiscal: Yes
Urgency: No
RD
SUBJECT
Courts: Court Reporters
DESCRIPTION
This bill would repeal sections of existing law that, among
other things, require court reporters to be provided for various
case types in 14 counties.
BACKGROUND
California law requires that an official reporter or official
reporter pro tempore of the superior court take down in
shorthand all testimony, objections made, rulings of the court,
exceptions taken, arraignments, pleas, sentences, arguments of
the attorneys to the jury, and statements and remarks made and
oral instructions given by the judge or other judicial officer,
in specified cases. These cases include: criminal cases on the
order of the court or at the request of the prosecution,
defendant, or attorney for the defendant; and civil cases on the
order of the court or at the request of a party. (Code Civ.
Proc. Sec. 269.) With respect to civil proceedings,
specifically, the Government Code requires that certain fees be
charged and be used to pay for the cost for services of the
official court reporter. (See Gov. Code Sec. 68086.)
Separately, California law also requires that certain counties
provide court reporters in specific case types. For example, in
El Dorado County, court reporters are required to report: (1)
all criminal proceedings; (2) all civil commitment proceedings
and all contempt proceedings; (3) all juvenile proceedings,
other than those heard by a juvenile court referee or traffic
(more)
SB 1313 (Nielson)
Page 2 of ?
hearing officer; (4) all family law proceedings; and (5) all
civil jury trials. (Gov. Code Sec. 70045.75(a).) Similar
provisions exist for Trinity, Modoc, Merced, Nevada, Butte,
Tehama, Lake, Tuolumne, Monterey, Mono, Solano, San Luis Obispo,
and Mendocino, mandating the case types that court reporters are
required to report.
This bill would repeal those provisions specific to the counties
of Trinity, Modoc, Merced, Nevada, El Dorado, Butte, Tehama,
Lake, Tuolumne, Monterey, Mono, Solano, San Luis Obispo, and
Mendocino.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law , in relevant part, requires that an official
reporter or official reporter pro tempore of the superior court
take down in shorthand all testimony, objections made, rulings
of the court, exceptions taken, arraignments, pleas, sentences,
arguments of the attorneys to the jury, and statements and
remarks made and oral instructions given by the judge or other
judicial officer in the following cases:
in a civil case, on the order of the court or at the request
of a party;
in a felony case, on the order of the court or at the request
of the prosecution, the defendant, or the attorney for the
defendant; and
in a misdemeanor or infraction case, on the order of the
court. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 269.)
Existing law establishes the Trial Court Trust Fund (TCTF).
(Gov. Code Sec. 68085.)
Existing law requires that the fees collected by the trial
courts for official court reporters be deposited in a bank
account established by the Administrative Office of the Courts
(AOC). The AOC must distribute those deposits as provided, with
the remainder going to the TCTF. (Gov. Code Sec. 68085.1.)
Existing law , for each civil proceeding anticipated to last one
hour or less, requires a fee of $30 be charged for the
reasonable cost of the court reporting services provided at the
expense of the court by an official court reporter, as
specified. (Gov. Code Sec. 68086(a)(1).)
Existing law requires that for each civil proceeding lasting
more than one hour, a fee equal to one-half day of services be
SB 1313 (Nielson)
Page 3 of ?
charged to the parties, on a pro rata basis, and that the fees
collected be used only to pay the cost for services of an
official court reporter, as specified. (Gov. Code Sec.
68086(a)(2).)
Existing law for the counties of Trinity, Modoc, Merced, Nevada,
El Dorado, Butte, Tehama, Lake, Tuolumne, Monterey, Mono,
Solano, San Luis Obispo, and Mendocino, specifies case types in
which the courts must provide court reporters, including, for
example, all family law cases or all civil proceedings.
Existing law, for each of those counties, also provides various
requirements relating to the salaries and benefits of those
court reporters. (Gov. Code Secs. 70045.1, 70045.2, 70045.4,
70045.75, 70045.77, 70045.8, 70045.10, 70046.4, 70050.6,
70056.7, 70059.8, 70059.9, 70063, and 70064.)
This bill would repeal those sections, in their entirety, for
the counties of Trinity, Modoc, Merced, Nevada, El Dorado,
Butte, Tehama, Lake, Tuolumne, Monterey, Mono, Solano, San Luis
Obispo, and Mendocino.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
According to the author:
SB 1313 eliminates the requirements that the enumerated courts
(Trinity, Modoc, Merced, Nevada, El Dorado, Butte, Shasta,
Tehama, Lake, Tuolumne, Monterey, Mono, Solano, San Luis
Obispo, and Mendocino) use court reporters in certain case
types that are not considered mandated, and to eliminate
out-of-date references to the role of boards of supervisors in
voting on and setting pay rates for court employees. . . .
Eliminating these requirements will allow the [14] superior
courts the same flexibility that the other 43 superior courts
in California have to determine if their budget circumstances
can accommodate court reporting in non-mandated case types.
It is important to note that the statutes that would be
repealed under SB 1313 were enacted before trial court funding
was consolidated at the state level in 1997. The statutes
were a method to help courts secure additional court reporting
dollars from their county boards of supervisors; this is the
first time they are being addressed since 1997. SB 1313 will
repeal these outdated statutes. Court executives estimate
that eliminating the requirement to provide official court
SB 1313 (Nielson)
Page 4 of ?
reporters in certain case types could save money in their
budgets related to court reporting. The Legislature and the
Governor have challenged the courts to identify measures which
can save time and resources without costing the state
additional money. This is a cost saving efficiency for all
[14] of these courts.
The sponsor of this bill, the Judicial Council, adds that:
The Judicial Council supports and is sponsoring SB 1313, which
promotes efficiency and flexibility in the superior courts by
eliminating requirements impacting 14 enumerated courts to use
court reporters in non-mandated case types. Senate Bill 1313
also deletes antiquated code sections enacted prior to both
the Trial Court Employment Protection and Governance Act, and
the Trial Court Funding Act of 1997.
Under current law, court reporters are mandated in all
criminal and juvenile cases across the state. However, the
superior courts enumerated in SB 1313 are also required to
provide court reporters in non-mandated case types, such as
civil cases, limited civil cases, and coroners' inquests.
Most significantly, the code sections to be repealed include
outdated references to when the superior courts functioned as
part of the county rather than as part of the state trial
court system.
This proposal would eliminate the requirement that the
enumerated courts use court reporters in non-mandated case
types. Eliminating these requirements will allow the
enumerated superior courts the same flexibility that the other
superior courts in California have to determine if their
budget circumstances can accommodate court reporting in
non-mandated case types.
2. Transcripts are vital to the administration of justice
Existing law governs the provision of court reporters and
prescribes the salaries and benefits of those reporters for
various counties. This bill would repeal such statutes for 14
counties: Trinity, Modoc, Merced, Nevada, El Dorado, Butte,
Tehama, Lake, Tuolumne, Monterey, Mono, Solano, San Luis Obispo,
and Mendocino. In doing so, the bill would effectively remove
the legal mandate for those counties to provide court reporters
in certain case types. For example, in Merced, Nevada, and El
Dorado counties, courts are required to provide court reporters
SB 1313 (Nielson)
Page 5 of ?
in all family law proceedings, criminal proceedings, civil jury
trials, all civil commitment and contempt proceedings, and most
juvenile proceedings. Effectively, those courts would no longer
be mandated to provide court reporters except in criminal
proceedings and certain juvenile proceedings, and could charge
the parties for the provision of court reporters in civil cases
(insofar as reporters are available), as otherwise provided
under the law.
The author and sponsor of this bill argue that this bill is a
cost-saving efficiency for these courts and readily acknowledge
that the bill would allow these courts to remove court reporters
from certain cases due to budgetary constraints. It is argued
that because the other counties only are mandated to provide
court reporters in criminal and juvenile cases, it is only fair
to provide these courts the same flexibility.
As a matter of public policy, having accurate transcripts of
proceedings is vital to the administration of justice for
multitudes of reasons. For example, to provide a record for
appeal; to enable opposing counsel to impeach a witness (prior
inconsistent statements under oath); to prosecute a person for
perjury; and to ensure that court orders accurately reflect what
the judge actually ruled in court with respect to any range of
important issues such as visitation rights, or division of
property. To equate the provision of services that result in
these important records as "inefficiencies" would arguably
mischaracterize their critical role the American legal system.
This Committee recently held a hearing on the impact of the
budget cuts on family law cases (entitled: Family Law Courts:
Budget Cutbacks and Access to Justice) wherein numerous
witnesses, including judges, reiterated the importance of having
records in their cases. Staff further notes that to imply that
the provision of court reporting services in what are
"non-mandated cases" in the majority of counties is a sort of
court inefficiency can have dire consequences. The removal of
these services from courtrooms, arguably, is in many cases as
much a threat to the public's access to justice as is the
closure of courtrooms themselves. If a family has to wait to
rehear a case because the parties cannot agree that the court
order accurately reflects the judge's precise orders on a
visitation or child support issue, it not only creates
additional inefficiencies for the court to re-expend those
resources, it also hinders justice for those families.
SB 1313 (Nielson)
Page 6 of ?
Staff also notes that even if these provisions were enacted
prior to the trial court unification of the 1990s, the
California Law Revision Commission (CLRC) has on numerous
occasions identified legislation that would delete obsolete
statutes and make other necessary changes due to that
unification, including changes to court reporter statutes.
Nonetheless, while the CLRC recognized the need to further
review "[w]hether the statutes governing reporters and their
fees in various counties require revision," to staff's
knowledge, it has not made recommendations to repeal the
statutes as proposed by this bill. (See CLRC, Cases in Which
Court Reporter Is Required, 31 Cal.L. Revision Comm'n Reports
223, 234 (2001); see also CLRC, Trial Court Unification:
Revision of Codes, 28 Cal. L. Revision Comm'n Reports 51, 77
(1998).) Additionally, if fairness is the issue and this
Legislature is compelled to remove disparity among the counties,
it could be argued that public policy would favor the provision
of court reporting services across all courtrooms, across all
counties. In other words, this legislation appears to be headed
in the opposite direction.
SHOULD THIS COMMITTEE APPROVE LEGISLATION THAT WOULD REMOVE
COURT REPORTING SERVICES FROM COURTS IN WHICH THEY ARE CURRENTLY
BEING PROVIDED, WHERE PUBLIC POLICY SUPPPORTS THE PROVISION OF
SUCH SERVICES IN ALL CASES, ACROSS ALL COUNTIES?
3. Opposition
In opposition to this bill, the California Court Reporters
Association (CCRA) and the Los Angeles Court Reporters
Association write that:
Court reporter services are critical to the administration of
justice by ensuring a verbatim record of proceedings for
purposes of judicial process and appellate review. Los
Angeles, and most courts in our state, continue to face
significant funding reductions, which negatively impact the
public's access to justice in our communities. Repealing the
proposed code section not only erodes the public's access to
justice, but also could create further inefficiencies. An
accurate verbatim record is imperative for dispute resolution
involving child custody issues as well as sensitive financial
matters. With no record or an inaccurate record, further
proceedings would tax the litigants financially as well as the
overburdened court calendars. Child custody disputes require
immediate resolution and cannot wait for the "next available"
SB 1313 (Nielson)
Page 7 of ?
court date.
Earlier this year, your committee held an informational
hearing that highlighted the challenges created by the budget
cutbacks specifically in family law courts. As the
committee's informational hearing highlighted, family law
covers issues that are critical to the safety and well being
of children and families. Currently official reporters in
several of the counties included in this bill are reporting
the record in family law proceedings. Although budget
challenges force tough choices, we have significant concerns
about removing a statutory barrier that would allow courts to
no longer assign reporters to create a record in those
proceedings.
Not only do we feel that access to a complete and accurate
record is critical to ensure full access to justice, as a
result of the equipment used by court reporters today -
equipment that is paid for and maintained by the court
reporters themselves - immediate availability of the certified
transcripts prepared and the rough draft transcripts (often
referred to as "realtime translation") can lead to fewer
continuances of cases, faster resolution of cases and more
accurate and timely court minute orders, among others.
The Service Employees International Union (SEIU), also in
opposition, adds:
In 2000, SB 2140 (Chapter 1010) was signed into law to provide
a comprehensive employment and collective bargaining structure
for trial court employees in response to the recent
unification of California's trial courts, new funding
mechanism and separation from county structures. Subsequent to
the enactment of SB 2140 and other laws, the California Law
Revision Commission began a comprehensive review of the
statutes to determine which ones were obsolete or unnecessary
given the magnitude of the reforms which affected almost every
aspect of the trial court system. All parties were afforded
the opportunity to comment on statutes proposed to be
repealed.
There were several statutes in particular that affected court
reporters that SEIU, AFSCME and other organizations
representing court reporters objected to since they provided
critical protections to the reporters and mandates regarding
the use of official court reporter services. With regard to
SB 1313 (Nielson)
Page 8 of ?
these county statutes, there was particular concern that they
should not be eliminated because there did not exist the same
protections for court reporters via local employment (merit or
civil service) systems or collective bargaining agreements
that would prevent a court from wholesale eliminating court
reporters in non-criminal proceedings. The concern was that
if the statutes were eliminated and the reporters did not have
the same protections as others in other counties that in some
future date a court could decide to just stop providing
certain reporting services to the public and eliminate
reporter jobs.
Unfortunately, this concern has come to fruition with some of
the courts enumerated in the bill, despite the existence of
statutes stating otherwise. Some of these courts have decided
to end court reporter services to the public on cases that
they deem "non-mandated." Despite, being deemed as
"non-mandated," the public still needs and deserves an
official, verbatim transcript of their court proceeding. . . .
.
SB 1313 will lead to a denigration of court reporters services
to the public in the counties affected by this bill. It is
patently unfair to allow this disservice to the citizens of a
targeted few counties.
Support : None Known
Opposition : California Court Reporters Association; Los Angeles
Court Reporters Association; Service Employees International
Union
HISTORY
Source : Judicial Council of California
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation : None Known
**************
SB 1313 (Nielson)
Page 9 of ?