BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 421|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 421
Author: Wayne (D)
Amended: 8/5/02 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 5-1, 8/13/02
AYES: Escutia, Kuehl, OConnell, Peace, Sher
NOES: Ackerman
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 72-0, 1/30/02 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Depositions: recording
SOURCE : Consumer Attorneys of California
DIGEST : This bill provides that a person who videotapes
a deposition for use at trial need not meet the
qualifications of a deposition officer. The bill also
provides that the videographer may be an attorney, or may
be an employee or independent contractor retained by the
attorney taking the deposition.
ANALYSIS : Existing law provides that a deposition must be
conducted under the supervision of an officer authorized to
administer an oath, who is not financially interested in
the action and is not a relative or employee of any party,
or party's attorney, and who meets other specified
requirements.
Existing law requires the deposition testimony and any
objections to be taken stenographically, unless the parties
CONTINUED
AB 421
Page
2
agree or the court orders otherwise, and also permits any
party to record the testimony by audiotape or videotape,
subject to specified conditions.
Existing law further requires that the operator of audio or
video recording equipment at a deposition be competent to
set up, operate, and monitor the equipment in the manner
prescribed by law, and permits the operator to be an
employee of the attorney taking the deposition, unless the
operator also is the deposition officer.
Existing law provides that any party may use a videotaped
deposition of an expert witness at trial, even though the
deponent is available to testify, if the deposition notice
reserved the right to do so, and the party complies with
certain procedural requirements.
Existing law further provides that any party may object to
all or part of videotaped testimony for trial purposes, and
that the court may order portions of the tape suppressed,
or that an edited version be made for trial.
Existing law further requires that, where videotaped
testimony is intended to be offered at trial, the operator
of the video equipment shall be a person who is authorized
to administer an oath, and who is not financially
interested in the action and is not a relative or employee
of any party, or party's attorney, unless the parties agree
to waive these requirements.
This bill would delete these additional requirements for
videotape equipment operators when the videotaped
deposition is intended to be offered at trial, and instead
would subject them to the basic competence requirements for
videotape equipment operators set forth in Section
2025(l)(2).
This bill further would provide that a videotape equipment
operator at a deposition may be, in addition to an employee
of the attorney taking the deposition, an independent
contractor or an attorney.
This bill further would provide that the attorney who
selects the operator of the recording equipment at a
AB 421
Page
3
deposition shall make available a copy of the audiotape or
videotape to any party upon request and upon payment by
such party of the cost of reproduction of such copy.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/16/02)
Consumer Attorneys of California (source)
Glendale Bar Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The Consumer Attorneys of
California (CAOC), sponsor of the bill, states that the
Code of Civil Procedure sets forth explicit parameters for
audiotaped or videotaped depositions. For example, the CCP
provides that the operator of the equipment must be
competent, the setting must be conducive to the making of
an adequate recording, and the operator may not distort the
appearance or demeanor of the participants. Further, an
opposing party may object to the admission of all or part
of a videotape at trial, and the court may order the tape
to be excluded or edited in accordance with any sustained
objections.
AB 421 would retain all existing protections against misuse
of a videotaped deposition, eliminating only the
requirement that, if a videotaped deposition is intended to
be used at trial, the videographer must be "certified"
(i.e., a deposition officer authorized to administer the
oath, financially uninterested in the litigation, and
neither employed by nor related to the parties or counsel).
CAOC writes:
Hiring a certified videographer is costly. Our Los
Angeles members report paying as much as $800 a day for a
certified video operator, in addition to the cost already
associated with compensating a certified stenographic
reporter. [ ] The certified stenographer provides the
safety valve for accuracy, and the attorney wishing to
use the videotaped deposition at trial must still lay the
proper foundation for the accuracy of the video.
AB 421
Page
4
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Aanestad, Alquist, Aroner, Ashburn, Bates, Bogh,
Briggs, Calderon, Bill Campbell, Canciamilla, Cardenas,
Cardoza, Cedillo, Chan, Chavez, Chu, Cogdill, Cohn,
Corbett, Correa, Cox, Daucher, Diaz, Dickerson, Dutra,
Firebaugh, Florez, Frommer, Goldberg, Harman, Havice,
Hollingsworth, Horton, Keeley, Kehoe, Kelley, Koretz, La
Suer, Longville, Lowenthal, Maddox, Maldonado, Matthews,
Migden, Mountjoy, Nakano, Nation, Negrete McLeod,
Oropeza, Robert Pacheco, Rod Pacheco, Papan, Pavley,
Pescetti, Reyes, Richman, Runner, Salinas, Shelley,
Simitian, Steinberg, Strickland, Strom-Martin, Thomson,
Vargas, Washington, Wayne, Wiggins, Wright, Wyman,
Zettel, Hertzberg
RJG:jk 8/16/02 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****