BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1002
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 5, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mark Stone, Chair
AB 1002
(Wilk) - As Amended April 28, 2015
PROPOSED CONSENT (As Proposed to be Amended)
SUBJECT: CIVIL ACTIONS: DEPOSITIONS: INTERPRETER COSTS
KEY ISSUE: SHOULD INTERPRETER FEES INCURRED FOR THE DEPOSITION
OF A NON-ENGLISH SPEAKING PARTY OR WITNESS BE MADE SPECIFICALLY
REIMBURSABLE TO THE PREVAILING PARTY?
SYNOPSIS
Existing law provides that the costs of taking, video recording
and transcribing necessary depositions, including travel costs
to attend a deposition, are reimbursable costs, but has no clear
provision that interpreter costs are included as part of those
reimbursable costs. According to the author, this could result
in a denial of access to justice if a party has to forego
interpretation of deposition testimony simply because of the
cost barrier or uncertainty about whether the cost is
reimbursable to the prevailing party who paid those costs
out-of-pocket.
AB 1002
Page 2
This non-controversial bill, sponsored by the California
Conference of Bar Associations, seeks to allow a prevailing
party to recover interpreter fees for the deposition of a party
or witness who does not speak or understand English.
Accordingly, this bill would specifically include interpreter
costs among those costs of taking a deposition that are
reimbursable costs to the prevailing party in a civil action.
Proposed amendments to the bill are merely technical and add a
co-author. There is no known opposition to this bill.
SUMMARY: Revises and clarifies various costs that a prevailing
party in a civil action may recover. Specifically, this bill:
1)Allows a prevailing party to recover interpreter fees for the
deposition of a party or witness who does not proficiently
speak or understand the English language.
2)Clarifies that a prevailing party may recover travel expenses
to attend depositions.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Provides that, except as otherwise expressly provided by
statute, a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right
to recover costs in any action or proceeding. (Code of Civil
Procedure Section 1032(b).)
2)Provides that specified items are allowable as costs to a
prevailing party in a civil matter, including, among other
things:
a) Filing, motion, and jury fees;
b) Juror food and lodging, as specified;
AB 1002
Page 3
c) Taking, video recording, transcribing necessary
depositions, as specified, and travel;
d) Service of process, as specified;
e) Expenses of attachment, including keeper's fees;
f) Premiums on necessary surety bonds;
g) Ordinary witness fees, as specified;
h) Court reporter fees as established by statute;
i) Models and blowups of exhibits and photocopies of
exhibits that may be allowed if they were reasonably
helpful to aid the trier of fact;
j) Court interpreter fees for a qualified court interpreter
authorized by the court for an indigent person represented
by a qualified legal services project. (Code of Civil
Procedure section 1033.5(a).)
FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed
non-fiscal.
COMMENTS: This bill seeks to allow a prevailing party to
recover interpreter fees for the deposition of a party or
witness who does not speak or understand English proficiently.
The author explains the need for the bill as follows:
Interpreter fees are allowed as a reimbursable cost
under existing law only when the party is both
indigent and represented by either a legal services
organization or a pro bono attorney. This limitation
reflects the Legislature's belief that court
interpreters should be provided at no cost as a matter
of right.
The ability of parties and participants to understand
what is happening is no less important at earlier
stages of litigation, however, particularly since
deposition testimony can be used at trial under
AB 1002
Page 4
certain circumstances (see e.g. CCP Section 2025.620.)
In these cases, working-class and middle-class
persons seeking to assert or defend their rights must
pay for interpreter services out of their own pocket.
This can amount to a denial of access to justice to
those who cannot afford the means to understand the
legal process. This bill will help increase access to
justice for non-English-speaking Californians by
making interpreter fees incurred during the taking of
necessary depositions a reimbursable cost.
This bill ensures that interpreter costs are among those costs
of taking a deposition that are reimbursable to the prevailing
party. Existing law, Section 1033.5(a)(3) currently provides
that the costs of taking, video recording and transcribing
necessary depositions, including travel costs to attend a
deposition, are a reimbursable cost. However, the author
contends, the statute makes no clear provision that interpreter
costs are included as part of those costs. Interpreter costs
might be found to be allowable costs in the discretion of the
court under Section 1033.5(c)(4), but there is no guarantee of
this outcome. In contrast, court reporter fees and interpreter
fees are each addressed specifically elsewhere in the statute.
Accordingly, this bill would specifically include interpreter
costs among those costs of taking a deposition that are
reimbursable costs to the prevailing party in a civil action.
This bill could help increase access to justice for non-English
speakers. The author contends that interpretation of deposition
testimony, like interpretation of in-court testimony, is crucial
to ensure that the parties and witnesses understand what is
being said during all phases of litigation. The author further
contends that it is a denial of access to justice if a party has
to forego either form of interpretation simply because of cost
barriers, specifically the inability to recover out of pocket
interpretation costs upon prevailing in the case.
AB 1002
Page 5
The Committee notes that the Legislature has previously
recognized the important need for interpreters in depositions
involving non-English speakers. In 2012, the Legislature
enacted SB 863 (De Leon), Ch. 363, Stats. 2012, which, among
other things, required employers to pay for the services of a
language interpreter in a worker's compensation case if
interpretation services are required because the injured
employee or deponent did not speak or understand English
proficiently. Although civil litigation differs from workers'
compensation cases, the author rightly points to the same
principle at work in both scenarios: Persons who require
interpreter services to protect their rights in legal
proceedings should not have to pay for the privilege of doing
so.
This bill, by ensuring that interpreter costs for depositions
are reimbursable to the prevailing party, may help remove this
potential barrier to access to justice for non-English speakers.
Author's technical amendments. The author proposes the
following technical amendments:
On page 3, line 6, strike "blowups" and replace with
"enlargements"
Add Assemblymember Alejo as joint co-author.
Previous related legislation. AB 1657 (Gomez, Ch. 721, Stats.
of 2014) expressly authorizes the court to provide a court
interpreter in any civil action or proceeding at no cost to the
parties, regardless of the income of the parties. The bill
further requires interpreters to be provided in accordance with
a specified order of priority, until sufficient funds are
AB 1002
Page 6
appropriated to provide an interpreter to every party who needs
one.
AB 1127 (Chau) of 2013 would have required the Judicial Council
to establish a working group to develop "best practices" for
providing interpreters in civil court proceedings and further to
conduct a pilot project to implement those practices, but was
vetoed by the Governor.
AB 1403 (Assembly Judiciary Committee, Ch. 409, Stats. of 2011)
added court interpreter fees to the costs the a prevailing party
could recover in civil action, but only for a qualified court
interpreter authorized by the court for an indigent person
represented by a qualified legal services project, as defined by
Section 6213 of the Business and Professions Code.
AB 2684 (Assembly Judiciary Committee, Ch. 758, Stats. of 2012)
expanded the right to recover interpreter fees as a cost of
litigation to include cases where the prevailing party was
represented by a pro bono attorney.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
California Conference of Bar Associations (CCBA) (sponsor)
Opposition
AB 1002
Page 7
None on file
Analysis Prepared by:Anthony Lew / JUD. / (916) 319-2334