BILL ANALYSIS
AB 170
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 17, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mike Feuer, Chair
AB 170 (Mendoza) - As Introduced: January 29, 2009
PROPOSED CONSENT
SUBJECT : COURT REPORTERS: INSTANT VISUAL DISPLAY AS ROUGH
DRAFT TRANSCRIPTS
KEY ISSUE : SHOULD COURTS BE AUTHORIZED TO CERTIFY THE INSTANT
VISUAL DISPLAY OF COURT TESTIMONY AND PROCEEDINGS AND TO ALLOW
THEIR USE, CITATION, OR TRANSCRIPTION AS THE OFFICIAL CERTIFIED
TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS, OR ALTERNATIVELY, TO REBUT OR
CONTRADICT THE OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS?
SYNOPSIS
This non-controversial bill, identical to last year's AB 1569
that was summarily vetoed by the Governor, is sponsored by the
California Official Court Reporters Association. This bill
updates current law regarding the certification and use of rough
draft transcripts of court proceedings to account for new
technology utilized by many official court reporters. Known as
instant visual display, this new service provided by court
reporters allows attorneys and judges to view testimony on a
laptop screen in real-time as it is being prepared. In order to
avoid potential disputes over whether real-time transcripts on
instant visual display may be certified and used as evidence,
this bill provides that instant visual display shall be treated
as a rough draft transcript under the law. Therefore, this bill
ensures that instant visual display of court testimony or
proceedings shall not be certified and cannot be used, cited,
distributed, or transcribed as the official transcript of the
proceedings. In addition, instant visual display may not be
cited or used to rebut or contradict the official certified
transcript of proceedings. These provisions are scheduled to
sunset on January 1, 2017. The bill also makes a minor
permanent change to prohibit the distribution of a rough draft
transcript as the official certified transcript of the
proceedings. There is no known opposition to this bill.
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed
non-fiscal.
AB 170
Page 2
SUMMARY : Prohibits certification of the instant visual display
of court testimony and proceedings as the official transcript of
the proceedings, as well as their use or citation for specified
purposes. Specifically, this bill :
1)Provides that an instant visual display of court testimony or
proceedings shall not be certified and cannot be used, cited,
distributed, or transcribed as the official transcript of the
proceedings, and may not be cited or used to rebut or
contradict the official certified transcript of proceedings.
These provisions sunset on January 1, 2017.
2)Provides that a rough draft transcript cannot be distributed
as the official certified transcript of the proceedings. This
provision will not sunset on January 1, 2017, but instead will
remain effective indefinitely.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that the report of the official court reporter, when
transcribed and certified as being a correct transcript of the
testimony and proceedings in the case, is prima facie evidence
of that testimony and proceedings. (Code of Civil Procedure
Section 273(a).)
2)Provides that the report of the official court reporter, when
prepared as a rough draft transcript, shall not be certified
and cannot be used, cited, or transcribed as the official
certified transcript of the proceedings, nor may it be cited
or used to rebut or contradict the official certified
transcript of the proceedings. Also provides that production
of the rough draft transcript may not be required. (Code of
Civil Procedure Section 273(b).)
COMMENTS : This bill would prohibit certification of the
instant visual display of court testimony and proceedings as the
official transcript of the proceedings, as well as their use or
citation for specified purposes. According to the author,
instant visual display is new technology that allows attorneys
and judges to see a court reporter's transcription in real time
displayed on laptop computers. Parties have increasingly sought
to use these visual display transcripts as evidence instead of
certified transcripts, opening the door to disputes over which
transcript, real-time or certified, is the proper document of
AB 170
Page 3
record.
The author explains: "While useful, instant visual display is
only a new form of a rough draft transcript, and should
therefore have limitations on its use. Like rough draft
transcripts, instant visual display does not represent
word-for-word transcription of court proceedings. According to
law, only the complete, official record can be used or
distributed for the purpose of challenging an action in a court.
This ensures transcript correctness and a court reporter's
services."
In addition, the author justifies AB 170 because it will
"clarify [current] law by treating instant visual displays in
the same manner as rough draft transcripts. Instant visual
display is a form of rough draft transcript, and it should be
included in laws concerning such transcripts. In action, AB 170
will ensure the correct transcripts are used for the appropriate
purposes, and guarantee court reporter's services remain a
necessary part of court proceedings."
This bill updates current law to account for the new technology
by defining instant visual display to be equivalent to a rough
draft transcript that cannot be certified or used as evidence.
Because court reporters operate under the pressure to both hear
and record testimony in real time, they have indicated that any
use of their in-court transcriptions, as certified evidence of
the proceedings, is problematic. For example, court reporters
often use abbreviations or clumping of words that, if used
before certification, can be wrongly interpreted and can lead to
unfair consequences to litigants.
Therefore, to uphold the credibility of their vital service to
the legal community, court reporters want the same opportunity
they have traditionally enjoyed to refine their notes and verify
the accuracy of their work product before they certify its use
as evidence.
Sunset Provision : The provisions of this bill regarding instant
visual display shall remain in effect only until January 1,
2017, but no such sunset provision applies to the rule that the
court reporter's rough draft transcript cannot be distributed as
the official certified transcript of the proceedings. This bill
would add distribution to the list of enumerated uses that are
permanently prohibited under current law.
AB 170
Page 4
PRIOR LEGISLATION : AB 1569 (Mendoza): AB 170 (Mendoza) as
introduced is identical to the version of last year's AB 1569
that was summarily vetoed by the Governor, without regard to its
merit. Prior to being vetoed, AB 1569 passed off the Senate
floor with only two dissenting votes and passed off the Assembly
floor by unanimous vote.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Official Court Reporters Association (sponsor)
Judicial Council of California
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Anthony Lew / JUD. / (916) 319-2334