BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1926
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 23, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mike Feuer, Chair
AB 1926 (Evans) - As Amended: March 18, 2010
SUBJECT : Court Records: Preservation Guidelines
KEY ISSUE : Should Courts be authorized to create, maintain, and
preserve court records in electronic form in order to avoid
unnecessary storage costs associated with paper records, so long
as electronic records are created and maintained in a way that
preserves the accuracy, integrity, and accessibility of the
records?
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.
SYNOPSIS
Sponsored by the Judicial Council of California, this bill seeks
to bring California's nineteenth century system of court record
preservation into the twenty-first century. Under existing
statutes that require courts to preserve paper records,
California devotes nearly two million linear feet to storing
court records, many of which must be stored at off-site
facilities. With existing technology, however, the courts could
create and maintain less costly and more efficient electronic
versions of paper records. Although courts are now permitted to
maintain electronic records (e.g. those that may be submitted
electronically) under existing law, they do not have any
authority to create official electronic records from the paper
records. This bill will give the court that authority, as well
as require the Judicial Council to develop standards that will
protect the accuracy, integrity, and accessibility of the
electronic records. As explained in the analysis, requiring
courts to maintain and preserve all paper records creates
substantial storage and retrieval costs for the courts - an
important consideration given the serious budget challenges that
our courts are now facing. As most recently amended, this bill
clarifies that the standards to be developed by the Judicial
Council will ensure that electronic records will be subject to
the same statutory preservation periods and access rules that
currently govern paper records. The analysis suggests one minor
clarifying amendment. There is no registered opposition to this
AB 1926
Page 2
non-controversial bill.
SUMMARY : Authorizes courts to create and maintain records in
electronic form and requires the Judicial Council to adopt rules
to govern the creation, maintenance, reproduction, and
preservation of these electronic court records. Specifically,
this bill :
1)Expands the authority of the courts to create, maintain, and
preserve in any form or forms, including paper, optical,
electronic, magnetic, micrographic, or photographic media or
other technology, so long as this is done according to
standards that ensure the accuracy, integrity, and
accessibility of the records.
2)Requires the Judicial Council to adopt rules to establish
standards and guidelines for the creation, maintenance,
production, or preservation of court records and specifies
that such standards and guidelines must ensure that court
records are created and maintained in a manner that ensures
accuracy and preserves the integrity of the records.
Specifies, also, that standards and guidelines shall ensure
that records are stored and preserved in a manner that will
protect against loss and ensure preservation for the required
statutory period, including records that must be preserved
permanently.
3)Specifies that records created pursuant to this bill shall be
disposable by the same procedure governing disposal of
existing records.
4)Requires each court to conduct periodic review of the media in
which court records are stored to ensure that storage medium
is not obsolete and that current technology is capable of
accessing and reproducing the records.
5)Specifies that electronic court records shall be accessible to
the public and viewable at the court in the same manner as
would be the case if they were stored and maintained as paper
records.
6)Redefines the definition of "retain permanently" so as to
permit the destruction of paper records so long as electronic
versions of those records are created and maintained
permanently according to prescribed standards and guidelines.
AB 1926
Page 3
EXISTING LAW :
1)Permits trial court records to be preserved in any form of
communication or representation according to minimum standards
or guidelines for preservation and reproduction of the medium
adopted by the American National Standards Institute or the
Association for Information and Image Management. Specifies
that no additions, deletions, or changes shall be made to the
content of the records and generally sets forth the manner in
which records shall be preserved, reproduced, or maintained.
(Government Code Section 68150.)
2)Prescribes the manner by which court records may be destroyed
after proper notice and of the passing the prescribed
statutory retention period. (Government Code Sections 68152
and 68513.)
COMMENTS : According to the author and sponsor, this measure
will save the courts considerable time and expense by permitting
the courts to create and maintain electronic court records in
lieu of paper records. The Judicial Council, the bill's
sponsor, notes that under existing law, courts must maintain
records in paper for the duration of statutory retention periods
and sometimes permanently. The result is that California must
devote nearly two million linear feet of storage space to courts
records. Because many courthouses lack sufficient space, many
records must be maintained at off-site storage facilities. In
addition to storage costs, keeping records at off-site storage
facilities also means staff must sometimes travel considerable
distances - on average 15 miles - to retrieve the paper records.
Electronic records, on the other, would obviate both the need
for physical storage space and make it easier for staff to
access these records almost instantly, instead of driving to
off-site facilities. According to the author, total costs
associated with records management in 2005-2006 was $21.8
million, with annual storage costs totaling $1.8 million.
Permitting the courts to create, maintain, and preserve records
in electronic form, the author and sponsor contend, will result
in significant long-terms savings.
Existing Law : Although existing law permits courts to maintain
both electronic and paper records, it nonetheless has a
statutory obligation to preserve those records in their original
form for a prescribed statutory period. The length of the
AB 1926
Page 4
retention period varies according to the nature of the records.
For example, records pertaining to eminent domain actions,
adoption, paternity, capital felonies, and change-of-name must
be retained permanently, and may never be destroyed or
transferred. Records of family law cases must generally be
retained for thirty years, while the records of most other civil
actions or proceedings must be maintained for ten years unless
otherwise specified. While in some cases existing law permits
the court to maintain such records in electronic forms if the
records were submitted in electronic form, it does not permit
the courts to create electronic versions of existing paper
records that can serve as the official record. As such, courts
may not take full advantage of cost and time efficiencies that
new technologies offer.
This bill would change existing law by authorizing the courts to
create electronic records from existing paper records, and then
require the courts to maintain and preserve those electronic
records in accordance with standards to be established by the
Judicial Council. In addition, this bill requires the Judicial
Council to adopt rules to establish the standards and guidelines
for the creation, maintenance, reproduction, or preservation of
courts records, including records which must be maintained
permanently. The standards and guidelines adopted by the
Judicial Council will replace those of the American National
Standards Institute and the Association for Information and
Image Management, which presently provide standards and
guidelines that courts must follow for record preservation.
Recent amendments set out minimum requirements for these
standards (page 2 lines 18-29 of the bill in print), and it is
the author's intent that the new standards established by the
Judicial Council will be consistent with the standards and
guidelines adopted by the American National Standards Institute
or the Association for Information and Images Management
In response to concerns about access to electronic records, the
recent amendments to this bill clarify that the created
electronic records will be subject to same access rights and
restrictions as would be the case if the records were maintained
in paper form.
Suggested Clarifying Amendment. This bill simultaneously
authorizes the courts to create new electronic records according
to Judicial Council standards at the same time that it requires
the Judicial Council to establish and adopt those very
AB 1926
Page 5
standards. As such, subdivision (a) in the proposed bill states
that courts shall comply with "requirements" in subdivision (c),
but subdivision (c) does not in fact set forth any
"requirements" - it simply directs the Judicial Council to adopt
rules that will establish certain standards and guidelines. In
short, the bill authorizes the courts to use standards that may
or may not exist at the time that the bill becomes effective.
To clarify courts may continue maintaining and preserving
records under existing statutory standards and authority until
the new Rules are adopted, the Committee recommends that the
author take the following amendment in this Committee:
- On page 2 line 7-8 of the bill in print delete "the
requirements provided in subdivision (c)." and insert:
"the rules adopted by the Judicial Council pursuant to
subdivision (c), once such rules have been adopted. Until such
rules are adopted, the courts may continue to create, maintain,
and preserve records according to the minimum standards or
guidelines for the preservation and reproduction of the medium
adopted by the American National Standards Institute or the
Association for Information Management ."
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The Judicial Council contends that "the
current statute governing the storage and maintenance of trial
court records is technologically out-of-date, with the result
that courts cannot utilize any electronic storage technology and
instead maintain court records in paper form." The Judicial
Council cites a 2007 survey showing that California devotes
1,854,992 linear feet of storage space spread out of 276
locations, including not only courthouse basements but off-site
storage facilities. The Judicial Council notes that the only
other media approved for in current law is microfilm, a
technology which is antiquated and no longer serviceable by
commercial vendors. According to the sponsor, this bill will
"enable courts to modernize the methods of creating,
maintaining, and preserving records." The Judicial Council
contends that this bill will result in significant long-terms
savings, because paper forms are much more expensive to create,
maintain, and preserve. In addition to the cost savings, the
Judicial Council claims electronic records can be made available
remotely, thereby allowing court users greater convenience in
accessing records. Finally, the Judicial Council claims that
electronic records are less susceptible to loss because they can
be stored in multiple locations. In short, the Judicial Council
AB 1926
Page 6
concludes: "Electronic court records management offers trail
courts myriad benefits which will reduce costs, eliminate the
unnecessary use of paper, improve access to court records, and
sure that court records can be safely and efficiently
preserved."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Judicial Council of California (sponsor)
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Thomas Clark / JUD. / (916) 319-2334