BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
2015-2016 Regular Session
AB 2244 (Gatto)
Version: June 13, 2016
Hearing Date: June 21, 2016
Fiscal: Yes
Urgency: No
RD
SUBJECT
Court fees: electronic filing
DESCRIPTION
This bill would ensure that if any trial court permits or
mandates electronic filing and service of documents, any fees
charged by the court, an electronic filing manager, or an
electronic filing service provider (EFSP) to process a payment
for filing fees and other court fees shall not exceed the costs
incurred. This bill would further ensure that if a trial court
mandates e-filing: (1) a court or an electronic filing manager
contracted with a court to provide a system for acceptance of
electronically transmitted documents and associated fees accept
more than one method of payment to an electronic filing service
provider, to be determined by the court, that may include credit
or debit cards, electronic funds transfers, electronic networks
for financial transactions such as Automated Clearing House
(ACH) and other payment methods that do not charge a transaction
cost; and (2) clarify that an EFSP is an agent of the court for
the sole purpose of collecting and remitting specified payments
and any fees set by an EFSP must, consistent with existing law,
be approved by the Judicial Council.
This bill would also allow for prevailing parties to recover
fees associated with electronic filing and service through an
EFSP, as specified. Lastly, the bill requires agents of the
court (EFSPs) to report their costs to the Judicial Council and
requires that the Judicial Council or its authorized
representative have access to and the right to examine the
records and documents of agents of the court for purposes of
AB 2244 (Gatto)
PageB of?
verifying the accuracy of these reports and compliance with this
reporting requirement, as specified.
BACKGROUND
The federal courts, have long allowed for electronic filing of
court documents. (See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. rule 5(d)(3), which
provides that a court may, by local rule, allow papers to be
filed, signed, or verified by electronic means that are
consistent with any technical standards established by the
Judicial Conference of the United States, and may require
electronic filing only if reasonable exceptions are allowed.)
The federal rules also, however, prohibit a court clerk from
refusing to accept paper filings - even if a local court rule
mandates electronic filing. (Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. Rule 5(d)(4);
see also Klemm v. Astrue (9th Cir. 2008) 543 F.3d 1139, 1143:
"Under this rule, the Clerk was obligated to accept Klemm's
notice of appeal for filing, despite Klemm's failure to comply
with the local electronic filing rules. [Footnote omitted.] In
any event, the Clerk's failure formally to file Klemm's notice
of appeal is of no import because the paper was deemed filed
when it 'arrived in the hands of the Clerk within the statutory
period.' [Citation omitted.] Thus, Klemm's notice of appeal was
timely even though it was mailed to the Clerk, rather than filed
electronically, as the local rules require.")
E-filing proponents argue that it creates substantial
efficiencies and cost savings for both litigants and the courts:
it saves in time, labor, postage, supplies, storage, and travel;
creates easier and timelier access to records and documents by
the courts and the public; engenders more efficient use of staff
time; allows for remote access to court records by lawyers and
the public over the Internet; grants attorneys the flexibility
to file documents after hours when courts are closed; and gives
multiple parties the ability to view the same documents, at the
same time. At the same time, however, this state has been
cautious of the hardships that e-filing might cause for some
courts or litigants-particularly low income or unrepresented
litigants-given that access to electronic communications are
still widely disparate among different cities and counties
within this state, and even from home to home in the same
neighborhoods based on one's economic means. Some might not be
able to even afford the technology needed for e-filing, or have
access to broadband or Internet services, even if they do have
the technology (i.e. computers.) Thus, while it has been long
AB 2244 (Gatto)
PageC of?
anticipated that e-filing and e-service will become the norm,
and not the exception, it has been with the understanding that
public policy ultimately dictates that, when it comes to our
courts, access (and uniform access at that) is imperative. This
is not to state that the competing interests in efficiencies and
access cannot coexist or help advance one another<1>; it is
merely to acknowledge that any rules adopted in this state for
e-filing need to be cognizant of the very real concerns related
to access so as to not compromise them in the name of
technological advancement and efficiency.
Accordingly, for years, California has authorized limited
electronic filing under Section 1010.6 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. In 1999, SB 367 (Dunn, Ch. 514, Stats. 1999), among
other things, enacted Section 1010.6, to allow trial courts to
adopt local rules permitting e-filing and service of documents,
and to require the Judicial Council to adopt uniform rules for
the electronic filing and service of documents in the trial
courts of the state, as specified. SB 367 also reflected the
legislative intent to: (1) provide for the eventual
standardization of electronic filing and service procedures on a
statewide level; and (2) to provide that a court shall not adopt
an electronic filing procedure that requires a litigant or
attorney to possess specialized, cumbersome, or expensive
equipment or software to utilize the electronic filing system.
Subsequently, in 2010, SB 1274 (Committee on Judiciary, Ch. 156,
Stats. 2010) authorized parties to consent to, or the court to
order, electronic service of documents that are not required to
be personally served. Among other things, SB 1274 also required
the Judicial Council to adopt uniform rules relating to the
integrity of electronic filing and service of documents in the
trial courts of the state, and redefined "electronic service" to
include both electronic notification and electronic
transmission, as specified.
Most recently, in 2012, this state enacted additional
legislation to authorize a pilot program in Orange County's
Superior Court that would allow for mandated e-filing in
specified cases, as long as certain enumerated conditions were
met. (See AB 2073, (Silva, Ch. 320, Stats. 2012).) Recognizing
---------------------------
<1> Indeed, allowing e-filing can grant litigants access (remote
access) to their courts, saving them valuable time that would
otherwise be spent standing in line and away from work-which can
be particularly difficult for low-wage and self-represented
litigants.
AB 2244 (Gatto)
PageD of?
that other courts may subsequently wish to move toward mandatory
e-filing as well, AB 2073 also allowed for that possibility, on
the condition that any future courts must also meet requirements
of Section 1010.6 and any additional uniform rules adopted by
the Judicial Council for the filing and service of documents in
the trial courts of the state based upon its study of the Orange
County court's pilot program. Indeed, in 2013, the Judicial
Council approved a proposal, effective July 1, 2013, to allow
superior courts to require that parties electronically file and
serve documents in civil cases. Notably, those new rules exempt
self-represented parties from any mandatory e-filing and service
requirements adopted by participating courts, but also include
language that encourages these parties to participate
voluntarily. To the extent feasible, courts and other entities
are encouraged to assist self-represented parties to
electronically file and serve documents. (See California Courts
Press Release, Judicial Council Allows Superior Courts to
Require E-filing in Civil Cases (Jun. 28, 2013)
[as of Jun. 5, 2016].)
This bill would update some of the statutory rules and
conditions surrounding mandatory e-filing, in particular
relating to processing fees charged for e-filing payments,
payment options, and the ability of prevailing parties to
recover e-filing fees.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law provides that except as otherwise provided by
statute, a prevailing party, as defined, is entitled as a matter
of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding. (Code
Civ. Proc. Sec. 1032(a)(5).)
Existing law enumerates the items allowable as costs under the
above provision, including, among other things:
filing, motion, and jury fees;
transcripts of court proceedings ordered by the court;
court reporter fees as established by statute;
court interpreter fees, as specified; and
any other item that is required to be awarded to the
prevailing party pursuant to statute as an incident to
prevailing in the action at trial or on appeal. (Code Civ.
Proc. Sec. 1033.5(a).)
Existing law provides that any award of costs is subject to the
AB 2244 (Gatto)
PageE of?
following, among other things:
allowable costs shall be reasonably necessary to the conduct
of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial
to its preparation; and
allowable costs shall be reasonable in amount. (Code Civ.
Proc. Sec. 1033.5(c).)
Existing law authorizes a court and other specified public
entities to accept credit card, debit card, or electronic fund
transfers for the payment of certain government services and
fees, including the payment of a filing fee or other court fee.
A court desiring to authorize the use of a credit card, debit
card, or electronic funds transfer must first obtain the
approval of the Judicial Council. Existing law provides that,
notwithstanding specified law, a court may impose a fee for the
use of a credit or debit card or electronic funds transfer, not
to exceed the costs incurred by the agency in providing for
payment by credit or debit card or electronic funds transfer.
These costs may include, but shall not be limited to, the
payment of fees or discounts to the card issuer, funds process,
or draft purchaser. Any such fee imposed by a court must be
approved by the Judicial Council. (Gov. Code Sec. 6159(b), (c),
(h).)
Existing law provides that in any action in which a party has
agreed to accept electronic service or in which the court has
ordered electronic service, as specified, the court may
electronically serve any document issued by the court that is
not required to be personally served in the same manner that
parties electronically serve documents. Existing law provides
that electronic service shall have the same legal effect as
service by mail, except as provided. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec.
1010.6(a)(3).)
Existing law provides that a trial court may adopt local rules
permitting electronic filing of documents, subject to Rules of
Court adopted as specified and subject to specified conditions.
These include conditions relating to electronic signatures and
fee waivers, among other things. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec.
1010.6(b)(1)-(6).) Existing law requires the court to permit a
party or attorney to file an application for waiver of court
fees and costs, in lieu of requiring the payment of the filing
fee, as part of the process involving the electronic filing of a
document, as specified. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1010.6(b)(6).)
AB 2244 (Gatto)
PageF of?
Existing law permits a court to require electronic filing of
documents in complex civil litigation cases, as specified,
provided that it does not cause undue hardship or significant
prejudice to any party in the action. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec.
1010.6(c).)
Existing law requires the Judicial Council to adopt uniform
rules for the electronic filing and service of documents in the
trial courts of the state, which shall include statewide
policies on vendor contracts, privacy, and access to public
records, and rules relating to the integrity of the electronic
service. Existing law requires these rules to conform to the
conditions set in Section 1010.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
as amended from time to time. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1010.6(e).)
Existing Rules of Court set forth uniform rules regarding
electronic filing and serving of documents. (California Rules
of Court, rules 2.250-2.261.)
Existing law provides authority for the Orange County Superior
Court, by local rule and until July 1, 2014, to establish a
pilot project to require parties to specified civil actions to
electronically file and serve documents, subject to specified
requirements and rules adopted by Judicial Council, and certain
additional conditions. Those additional conditions include that
the court and the parties either have access to more than one
electronic service provider capable of electronically filing
documents with the court, or to electronic filing access
directly through the court. Any fees charged by the court must
be for no more than the actual cost of electronic filing and
service of the documents, whereas any fees charged by the
electronic service provider must be reasonable. In both
instances, fees must be waived when deemed appropriate by the
court, including for any party who has received a fee waiver.
(Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1010.6(d).)
Existing law also requires the Judicial Council, on or before
July 1, 2014, to adopt uniform rules for mandatory electronic
filing and service of documents for specified actions in the
state's trial courts, which are to be informed by the pilot
project, above, and are to include statewide policies on vendor
contracts, privacy, access to public records, unrepresented
parties, parties with fee waivers, hardships, reasonable
AB 2244 (Gatto)
PageG of?
exceptions to electronic filing, and rules relating to the
integrity of electronic service. Existing law provides that
upon the adoption of those rules, a superior court may, by local
rule, require mandatory electronic filing, pursuant to the
requirements and conditions set forth in this section, including
several of the conditions that must be met by any court allowing
e-filing of documents and several of the requirements specified
for the mandatory e-filing pilot project, above. (Code Civ.
Proc. Sec. 1010.6(f), (g).)
This bill would add a new condition to the list of conditions
that would have to be met both by courts that elect to permit,
and courts that otherwise mandate, e-filing and service of
documents. Specifically, it would provide that a fee, if any,
charged by a court, an electronic filing manager, or an
electronic filing service provider to process a payment for
filing fees and other court fees shall not exceed the costs
incurred.
This bill would, consistent with existing law, specify that the
court, an electronic filing manager, or an electronic filing
service provider shall waive any fees charged if the court deems
waiver appropriate, including in instances where a party has
received a fee waiver.
This bill would prohibit an electronic filing service provider,
as described, from collecting or attempting to collect a fee to
complete an electronic filing transaction, including a fee to
process a payment, a filing or other court fee, or a fee charged
by the electronic filing service provider for electronically
filing documents, from a party who is exempt from paying fees;
provided, however, that the electronic filing service provider
must complete the filing notwithstanding the fee exemption.
This bill would further require a court or an electronic filing
manager that provides a court, pursuant to contract, a system
for acceptance of electronically transmitted documents and
associated filing and other court fees accept more than one
method of payment to an electronic filing service provider who
is required to collect and remit a payment of a filing or other
court as an agent of the court, as specified, below. The bill
would require the court to determine which methods of payment
shall be accepted by the court and the electronic filing
manager, and specifies that the methods of payment may include
credit or debit cards, electronic funds transfers, electronic
AB 2244 (Gatto)
PageH of?
networks for financial transactions such as Automated Clearing
House (ACH) and other payment methods that do not charge a
transaction cost.
This bill would authorize an "agent of the court" to impose a
fee for use of a credit or debit card or electronic funds
transfer, not to exceed the costs incurred by the agent in
providing for payment by credit or debit card or electronic
funds transfer. This bill would provide for these purposes, that
an electronic filing service provider who is required to collect
and remit a payment of a filing fee or other court fee, as
specified, complete an electronic filing transaction is deemed
an agent of the court, and, unless specified otherwise, the
electronic filing service provider is deemed an agent of the
court for the sole purpose of collecting and remitting such
payments for an electronic filing transaction. This bill would
further ensure that, consistent with the existing requirement
under Section 6159 of the Government Code, above, that any such
fees charged by the court be approved by the Judicial Council,
that any fees charged by the electronic filing service provider
be approved by the Judicial Council.
This bill would prohibit a court from being held liable for the
actions of an agent of the court under the above provisions and
would require that an agent of the court report its costs in
providing for payment by credit or debit card or electronic
funds transfer pursuant to Judicial Council guidelines. This
bill would require that the Judicial Council or its authorized
representative have access to and the right to examine the
records and documents of an agent of the court for purposes of
verifying the accuracy of these reports and compliance with this
reporting requirement. The agent of the court must: (1) provide
the Judicial Council all relevant information requested; (2)
permit access to its premises at reasonable times, for the
purposes of interviewing employees and inspecting and copying
any relevant records; and (3) maintain all records and documents
relating to its fees and costs for a minimum of four years from
the date the fee is imposed or until the verification process is
complete, whichever is later.
This bill would add to the list of recoverable costs by
prevailing parties:
fees for the electronic filing or service of documents through
an electronic filing service provider if a court requires or
orders electronic filing or service; and
AB 2244 (Gatto)
PageI of?
fees for the hosting of electronic documents if a court
requires or orders a party to have documents hosted by an
electronic filing service provider. This bill provides that
this paragraph shall become inoperative on January 1, 2022.
This bill would make other technical, clarifying or
non-substantive changes.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
According to the author:
The Judicial Council's Court Case Management System (CCMS), an
ambitious court technology project to provide all 58 superior
courts with a long-needed uniform, linked case management
system would have, among other things, made it easier for
parties to file their legal documents electronically with the
courts. Since its demise in the heights of the Great
Recession, California courts have moved to upgrade their
information technology systems with local contracts with
various vendors. These contracts typically provide for case
management systems, electronic filing of documents, and more.
Usually the third party vendor acts as an "electronic filing
manager" (EFM) in creating the portals through which
"electronic filing service providers" (EFSPs) actually file
documents on behalf of law firms and other users of court
services.
Increasingly, courts are moving to require the filing of
documents electronically. In some counties, certain case types
must be filed electronically, and often complex civil cases
require e-filing. In some counties, EFSPs must pay court
filing fees and e-filing transaction costs with credit cards,
and pay convenience fees to electronic filing managers for the
use of credit cards.
While electronic filing represents a major benefit to the
courts and public, how the systems are implemented can raise
policy questions of fair access to the judicial system. In
addition, present law contains a number of ambiguities which
should be resolved as these systems are being implemented. AB
2244 is intended to address these ambiguities.
AB 2244 (Gatto)
PageJ of?
In support, the Coalition for Improving Court Access, adds:
The use of electronic filing is expanding rapidly in
California courts, and courts throughout the country. Rather
than create and maintain electronic filing systems directly,
most courts have turned to contracts with private companies to
provide the services. In simple terms, the entities which
create and maintain the electronic filing portals into courts
are known as "electronic filing managers" (EFMs), while
companies which interact with law firms and other filers to
transmit documents to courts through these portals are known
as "electronic filing service providers" (EFSPs).
Courts increasingly are mandating the electronic filing of
documents in particular case types, as we move towards
"paperless" systems. There are tremendous benefits to
litigants and courts which can result from properly designed
and supervised electronic filing systems. [ . . . ] Taken
together, [the proposed changes in AB 2244] resolve
ambiguities and help establish the statutory framework to
support the growth of electronic filing in California courts.
2. Relevant terminology, explained
This bill uses terminology such as "electronic filing managers"
and "electronic filing service providers," and, as does existing
law, recognizes that e-filing can be provided directly by the
courts or by electronic filing service providers. As explained
in a recent report by the Judicial Council:
A fully functioning e-filing system (as opposed to
"e-delivery," which allows for documents to be delivered to a
court email address or other electronic drop box, but does not
integrate those documents into the court's case management
system) requires both an electronic filing service provider
(EFSP) to receive the filing, and an electronic filing manager
(EFM), to serve as a "translator" of the information received
on the forms from the EFSPs and deliver that information into
an individual court's case management system. In California,
local courts that are pursuing e-filing are working with their
case management system vendors to determine a certification
process for e-filing service providers (EFSPs) and an
appropriate number of EFSPs for certification. They will also
be contracting with a vendor for the development of an EFM to
communicate with their case management systems, in order to
AB 2244 (Gatto)
PageK of?
deliver the benefits of truly paperless filing.
Early experiences with e-filing, both in California and in
other states, suggest that many private vendor EFSPs are not
focused on serving the market segment of self-represented
litigants, many of whom are indigent and qualify for fee
waivers. The access community believes that the exclusion of
self-represented litigants from electronic filing "has the
potential to enlarge the access to justice gap in the long
run." Electronic filing is an area in which a slight tip of
the balance means that the technology tool is no longer used
to achieve greater access; rather, it becomes a barrier. The
California judicial branch has the opportunity to "place a
finger on the scale" in favor of low-income and
self-represented litigants by developing the capacity to serve
as the EFSP and EFM for all self-represented litigants in the
state.
In other states, the judicial branch serves as either a sole
EFSP or sole EFM for all forms of electronic filing (or
manages contracts with outside vendors for these services) on
behalf of all courts throughout the state. In California, the
Judicial Council can ensure that electronic filing is
available to all court users by serving as a one-stop EFSP and
EFM for self-represented litigants. This function is the
culmination of the work currently being undertaken to apply
user-centered design concepts to the information currently
available on the statewide self-help website and is the final
link in providing full and equal access to the courts for
self-represented litigants. (Judicial Council, The Critical
Role of the State Judiciary in Increasing Access for
Self-Represented Litigants: Self-Help Access 360? (Jul. 2015)
[as of Jun. 5, 2016] (Footnote omitted).)
3. Bill would enhance consumer protections for purposes of
mandatory e-filing fees
Existing law allows for courts to adopt local rules allowing
parties to electronically serve specified documents, consistent
with certain statutory requirements and conditions and
applicable Rules of Court. In 2012, AB 2073 (Silva, Ch. 320,
Stats. 2012) was enacted to authorize a temporary pilot project
in the Orange County Superior Court to require parties to
specified civil actions to electronically file and serve
AB 2244 (Gatto)
PageL of?
documents, subject to the rules adopted by the Judicial Council
and other specified conditions. That bill also required the
Judicial Council to adopt uniform rules for mandatory electronic
filing (or e-filing) and service of documents for specified
civil actions in the state's trial courts, and ensured that any
subsequent trial courts that seek to mandate electronic filing
adopt the conditions required by the Orange County Superior
Court pilot and the applicable Rules of Court issued by the
Judicial Council, as well as certain statutory conditions that
would apply in the context of voluntary e-filing courts. As
noted in the Background, the Judicial Council has since adopted
rules allowing for courts to mandate e-filing in civil actions,
having declared the pilot project a success which, overall
"resulted in significant cost savings for the court and was
generally less or equally expensive for litigants" and
"demonstrated the project's relative ease of use and convenience
for represented and self-represented litigants." (Judicial
Council, Report on the Superior Court of Orange County's
Mandatory E-Filing Pilot Project: Report to the Legislature as
Required by Code of Civil Procedure Section 1010.6(d)(2) (Sept.
2014)
[as of Jun. 5, 2016].)
This bill now seeks to make various updates to the statutory
conditions and requirements that relate to e-filing payments,
including processing fees. Most relevant to this bill, if a
superior court desires to mandate e-filing, existing law
dictates, among other things, that the court and the parties
either have access to more than one electronic filing service
provider (ESFP) capable of electronically filing documents with
the court, or to electronic filing access directly through the
court. Any fees charged by the court must be for no more than
the actual cost of electronic filing and service of the
documents and shall be waived when deemed appropriate by the
court, including, but not limited to, for any party who has
received a fee waiver. In contrast, any fees charged by an ESFP
are required to be "reasonable," and, must also be waived when
deemed appropriate by the court, including for any party who has
received a fee waiver. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1010.6(d)(1)(B).)
This bill would now expressly prohibit a court, electronic
filing manager (EFM), or EFSP from charging processing fees for
filing fees and other court fees shall in excess of the actual
AB 2244 (Gatto)
PageM of?
costs incurred. Notably, this prohibition would apply not only
in courts that mandate e-filing, but also those that allow it on
a voluntary basis. Additionally, consistent with existing law,
this bill would continue to ensure that the court, an EFM, or an
EFSP waive any fees charged if the court deems a waiver
appropriate, including in instances where a party has received a
fee waiver. Such fees, as reflected in the bill, include a fee
to process a payment, a filing or other court fee, or a fee
charged by the EFSP for electronically filing documents.
Moreover, the bill ensures that any fees for the use of a credit
or debit card or electronic funds transfer that are set by the
EFSP, as an agent of the court, who is required to collect and
remit funds in order to complete an electronic filing
transaction, would also have to first be approved by the
Judicial Council. (See Gov. Code Sec. 6159(h), which requires
any such fees, when set by a court, be approved by the Judicial
Council.)
Thus, as a practical matter, under this bill, any fees charged
to litigants for e-filing payments that they make by way of
credit card are restricted to the actual amount incurred for
processing the credit card payment, and no more-which is
particularly important when parties have no alternatives to
e-filing in certain actions. Moreover, the bill would further
ensure that the court or the contracted entity providing the
system for acceptance of e-documents and associated fees not
require an EFSP to use any single method of payment. The court
or contracted EFM would, instead, have to allow for more than
one form of payment, to be selected by the court, which may
include credit or debit cards, electronic funds transfers,
electronic networks for financial transactions such as Automated
Clearing House (ACH) and - notably - payment methods that do not
charge a transaction cost. Moreover, consistent with the
existing requirement that fees be waived for parties who have
received fee waivers from the court (e.g., indigent parties),
this bill would expressly prohibit EFSPs from collecting or
attempting to collect a fee to complete an e-filing transaction
from a party who is exempt from paying fees.
As a matter of public policy, as discussed in the Background,
while it is encouraging to see this state's courts incrementally
move toward mandatory e-filing, it is important to balance the
desire for innovation and efficiencies against access and
potential hardships to litigants, particularly for low-income
individuals. By adding such consumer protections into the law
AB 2244 (Gatto)
PageN of?
surrounding the conditions which must be met before e-filing can
be mandated by any California trial court, this bill would
appear to recognize the concerns related to access and help
ensure that those concerns are not compromised in the name of
technological advancement and efficiency.
4. Recovery of electronic filing service provider and EFSP
hosting fees
California allows prevailing parties to recover certain fees.
For these purposes, Section 1033.5 of the Code of Civil
Procedure lists various categories of costs that a prevailing
party may currently recover, to which this bill would add
electronic filing service provider (EFSP) fees as well as EFSP
hosting fees. Specifically, this bill provides that if a court
requires or orders a party to file and serve documents
electronically with the court, the party may recover fees for
the electronic filing or service of the documents through an
EFSP (which are otherwise limited by the bill to the actual
costs incurred). Similarly, if a court requires or orders a
party to have documents hosted by an ESFP, the prevailing party
may recover those fees, though only until January 1, 2022.
Notably, Section 1033.5 already permits the recovery of filing
fees. Indeed, when this Committee considered AB 2073 in 2012 to
allow for an Orange County pilot program (see Comment 2, above)
a question was raised as to the recovery of e-filing fees:
Interested parties have raised a question of whether the cost
of e-filing, in a county in which e-filing is made mandatory,
is a form of recoverable fees under Section 1033.5 of the Code
of Civil Procedure. That section lists costs that are
generally recoverable, in the court's discretion, by a
prevailing party, including, "[f]iling, motion, and jury
fees." (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1033.5(a)(1).) Staff notes that
where e-filing is made mandatory pursuant to this pilot
project, the direct cost of using the designated e-filing
systems to file documents is arguably among those filing fees
that can be recoverable under that section under the plain
meaning of the term, "filing fees." (Sen. Judiciary Com.
analysis of AB 2073 (2011-2012 Reg. Session) Jun. 10, 2012, p.
10.)
This bill would now make that presumption explicit. Ultimately,
allowable costs must be reasonably necessary to the conduct of
the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to
AB 2244 (Gatto)
PageO of?
its preparation and must be reasonable in amount. (See Code
Civ. Proc. Sec. 1033.5(c).) In support, the Judicial Council
writes that this bill "will result in a more consistent
electronic filing universe for both the public and the courts,
while also providing clarity for ESFPs in planning their
operations under the improved laws."
Support : Coalition for Improving Court Access; Judicial Council
Opposition : None Known
HISTORY
Source : Author
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation : AB 2073 (Silva, Ch. 320, Stats. 2012) See
Background; Comments 2 and 3.
Prior Vote :
Assembly Floor (Ayes 78, Noes 0)
Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 20, Noes 0)
Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 10, Noes 0)
**************