BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1926|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
CONSENT
Bill No: AB 1926
Author: Evans (D)
Amended: 4/6/10 in Assembly
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 4-0, 6/29/10
AYES: Corbett, Harman, Hancock, Leno
NO VOTE RECORDED: Walters
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 74-0, 4/22/10 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Court records: preservation guidelines
SOURCE : Judicial Council of California
DIGEST : This bill provides that trial courts could
create, maintain, and preserve court records in any form of
communication, as specified, if the form satisfies rules
adopted by the Judicial Council, as specified. This bill
requires the Judicial Council to establish standards and
guidelines for the creation, maintenance, reproduction, or
preservation of court records. This bill provides that
documents electronically signed, subscribed, or verified
would have the same validity and legal force and effect as
paper documents.
ANALYSIS : Existing law authorizes trial courts to
preserve records in any form of communication or
CONTINUED
AB 1926
Page
2
representation including optical, electronic, magnetic,
micrographic, or photographic media or other technology
capable of producing or reproducing the original record
according to standards or guidelines adopted by the
American National Standards Institute or the Association
for Information and Image Management; electronic records of
transcripts are governed by the California Rules of Court.
(Section 68150(a) of the Government Code [GOV])
Existing law prescribes that no additions, deletions, or
changes can be made to the content of the record and
records must be indexed for convenient access. (GOV
Section 68150(b))
Existing law provides that a copy of the preserved or
reproduced court record will be deemed the original court
record and can be certified as a correct copy of the
original record. (GOV Section 68150(c))
Existing law provides that a court record preserved or
reproduced shall be stored in a manner and place that
reasonably assures its preservation against loss, theft,
defacement, or destruction for the prescribed retention
period; electronic records of transcripts do not require a
backup copy unless specified by the California Rules of
Court. (GOV Section 68150(d))
Existing law provides that a reproduced court record can be
disposed of in a manner according to statute. (GOV Section
68150(e))
Existing law requires the following types of court records
to be preserved on paper, microfilm, or another form of
communication or representation approved by the archival
standards defined by the American National Standards
Institute for the duration of the record's retention
period: (1) comprehensive historical and sample superior
court records preserved for research under the California
Rules of Court, or (2) court records that are preserved
permanently. Court records that must be preserved longer
than ten years but not permanently can be reproduced
according to statute but must be reproduced before the
expiration of their estimated lifespan for the medium in
which they are stored pursuant to standards opted by the
AB 1926
Page
3
American National Standards Institute or the Association
for Information and Image Management. (GOV Section
68150(f))
Existing law requires instructions for access to data
stored on any medium other than paper to be documented.
(GOV Section 68150(g))
Existing law requires each court to conduct a periodic
review of the media in which court records are stored to
assure the storage medium is not obsolete and that current
technology is capable of accessing and reproducing the
records. (GOV Section 68150(g))
Existing law requires court records to be reproduced before
the expiration of their estimated lifespan for the medium
in which they are stored pursuant to standards opted by the
American National Standards Institute or the Association
for Information and Image Management. (GOV Section
68150(g))
Existing law requires public access and duplication of
court records preserved or reproduced as provided by
statute. (GOV Section 68150(h))
Existing law authorizes parties to redact social security
numbers from documents filed with court in connection with
marriage dissolutions, nullities, or legal separations.
(Section 2024.5(a) of the Family Code)
Existing law restricts electronic access to records in the
following types of proceedings:
Under the Family Code, including proceedings for
dissolution, legal separation, and nullity of marriage;
child and spousal support proceedings; child custody
proceedings; and domestic violence prevention
proceedings.
Juvenile court.
Guardianship or conservatorship.
Mental health.
AB 1926
Page
4
Criminal.
Civil harassment proceeding under statute.
Workplace violence prevention proceeding under statute.
Elder or dependent adult abuse prevention proceeding
under statute.
Proceedings to compromise the claims of a minor or a
person with a disability. (Rules of Court Section 2.503)
Existing law defines "retain permanently" to mean original
court records must never be transferred or destroyed. (GOV
Section 68151(d))
This bill provides that trial courts could create,
maintain, and preserve court records in any form of
communication, including paper, optical, electronic,
magnetic, micrographic media, or other technology, if the
form satisfies rules adopted by the Judicial Council, as
specified. Until such rules are adopted, the court can
continue to use the standards and guidelines for
preservation and reproduction adopted by the American
National Standards Institute or the Association for
Information and Image Management.
This bill excludes court reporter's transcripts and
specifications for electronic recordings made as the
official record of oral proceedings from this section; such
transcripts and records of oral proceedings would be
governed by the California Rules of Court.
This bill requires the Judicial Council to establish
standards and guidelines for the creation, maintenance,
reproduction, or preservation of court records. These
guidelines would have to ensure that court records are
created and maintained in a manner that ensures accuracy
and preserves the integrity of the records, protects the
records against loss, ensures preservation for the required
period of time, and ensures that electronic documents are
publicly accessible and reproducible.
AB 1926
Page
5
This bill specifies that no additions, deletions, or
changes can be made to the content of court records, except
as authorized by statute or the California Rules of Court.
This bill provides that any notice, order, judgment,
decree, decision, ruling, opinion, memorandum, warrant,
certificate of service, or similar document issued by a
trial court or trial court judicial officer can be signed,
subscribed, or verified, and have the same validity and
legal force and effect as paper documents, using a computer
or other technology in accordance with the procedures,
standards, and guidelines established by the Judicial
Council.
This bill requires a court record that is created,
maintained, preserved, or reproduced under this section to
be stored in a manner and place that reasonably ensures its
preservation against loss, theft, defacement, or
destruction for the prescribed retention period prescribed
by statute.
This bill provides that a reproduced court record can be
disposed of in a manner according to statute unless the
record is (1) a comprehensive historical and sample
superior court record preserved for research under the
California Rules of Court, or (2) a court record that is
required to be preserved permanently; these documents no
longer would be required to be preserved on paper,
microfilm, or in another form of communication or
representation pursuant to archival standards defined by
the American National Standards Institute for the duration
of the record's retention period.
This bill requires instructions to be documented for access
to data stored on a medium other than paper.
This bill removes the requirement for documents to be
reproduced before the expiration of their estimated
lifespan for the medium in which they are stored.
This bill requires, unless access is otherwise restricted
by law, court records created, maintained, preserved, or
reproduced under this bill to be made reasonably accessible
to all members of the public for viewing and duplication as
AB 1926
Page
6
the paper records would have been accessible; court records
maintained in electronic form shall be viewable at the
court, unless access is otherwise restricted by law,
regardless of whether they are also accessible remotely.
This bill redefines "retain permanently" to mean that court
records must be maintained permanently according to the
Judicial Council's standards or guidelines established
pursuant to the provisions of this bill.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/3/10)
Judicial Council of California (source)
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The author writes: "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."
The Judicial Council of California, the bill's sponsor,
writes:
"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 must instead
AB 1926
Page
7
maintain court records in paper form. In California, a
vast amount of storage space is currently devoted to
paper files of court records. A survey in 2007 indicated
that court records are stored in 276 locations throughout
the state (courthouse and off-site facilities), totaling
1,854,992 linear feet. The only other media approved for
court records storage in current law is microfilm, a
technology which is antiquated and no longer supported by
commercial vendors. AB 1926 would amend Government Code
sections 68150 and 68151 to enable courts to modernize
the methods of creating, maintaining, and preserving
records.
"Court records in paper form are expensive to create,
maintain, access, and preserve. But with the increasing
availability of electronic document management systems,
courts have an opportunity to realize significant
long-term savings if they can convert from paper to
electronic records. Authorizing records to be created,
maintained, and preserved in electronic forms is
practical and makes economic sense. Electronic records
can be made available remotely, and such remote access
will allow court users greater convenience in accessing
records. In addition, electronic records can be stored
in multiple locations, making them more robust and less
susceptible to loss than paper records."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Adams, Ammiano, Anderson, Arambula, Bass, Beall,
Bill Berryhill, Tom Berryhill, Blakeslee, Block,
Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan, Charles Calderon, Carter,
Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon,
DeVore, Emmerson, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong,
Fuentes, Fuller, Furutani, Gaines, Galgiani, Garrick,
Gilmore, Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill,
Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Lieu, Logue, Bonnie Lowenthal,
Ma, Mendoza, Miller, Monning, Nava, Nestande, Niello,
Nielsen, V. Manuel Perez, Portantino, Ruskin, Salas,
Saldana, Silva, Skinner, Smyth, Solorio, Audra
Strickland, Swanson, Torlakson, Torres, Torrico, Tran,
Villines, Yamada, John A. Perez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Blumenfield, Caballero, Huber, Huffman,
Norby, Vacancy
AB 1926
Page
8
RJG:mw 8/3/10 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****