BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2372|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
CONSENT
Bill No: AB 2372
Author: Hill (D)
Amended: 6/11/12 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 5-0, 6/19/12
AYES: Evans, Harman, Blakeslee, Corbett, Leno
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 73-0, 4/30/12 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Deposition transcripts: costs
SOURCE : Deposition Reporter Association of California
DIGEST : This bill requires that the requesting attorney
or party appearing in propria persona, upon the written
request of a deposition officer who has obtained a final
judgment for payment of services, provide to the deposition
officer an address that can be used to effectuate personal
service for the purpose of an order of examination, as
specified.
ANALYSIS : Existing law provides a comprehensive
procedure for the noticing, conducting and transcribing, or
recording of oral depositions. (Code of Civil Procedure
(CCP) Section 2025 et seq.)
Existing law requires the party noticing the deposition to
bear the cost of the
transcription, unless the court, on motion and for good
CONTINUED
AB 2372
Page
2
cause, orders that the cost be borne or shared by another
party. (CCP Section 2025.510(b))
Existing law requires the requesting attorney or party
appearing in propria persona to timely pay the deposition
officer or the entity providing the services of the
deposition officer for the transcription or copy of the
transcription, as specified, and any other deposition
product or service, as defined, that is requested either
orally or in writing. Existing law creates an exception
for when the deposition officer or entity is notified in
writing at the time the services or products are requested,
the party or other identified person will be responsible
for payment, and further specifies that it does not
prohibit or supersede an agreement between an attorney and
a party allocating responsibility for the payment of
deposition costs to the party. (CCP Section 2025.510(h))
Existing law provides, among other things, that a summons
may be served by personal delivery of a copy of the summons
and of the complaint to the person to be served. Existing
law provides that service of a summons in this manner is
deemed complete at the time of such delivery. (CCP Section
415.10)
Existing law provides that a judgment creditor may apply to
the proper court for an order requiring the judgment debtor
to appear before the court, or before a referee appointed
by the court, at a time and place specified in the order,
to furnish information to aid in enforcement of the money
judgment. (CCP Section 708.110(a))
Existing law requires that the judgment creditor personally
serve a copy of the order on the judgment debtor not less
than 10 days before the date set for the examination, in
the manner specified in Section 415.10. Existing law
provides that service of the order creates a lien on the
personal property of the judgment debtor for a period of
one year from the date of the order unless extended or
sooner terminated by the court. (CCP Section
708.110(c)-(d))
This bill requires that requesting attorney or party
appearing in propria persona, upon the written request of a
AB 2372
Page
3
deposition officer who has obtained a final judgment for
payment of services, as specified, provide to the
deposition officer an address that can be used to
effectuate personal service in the manner specified under
law.
Background
CCP Section 2025.510(b) requires the party noticing the
deposition to bear the cost of the transcription, unless
the court, on motion and for good cause, orders that the
cost be borne or shared by another party. In 2007, AB 1211
(Price, Chapter 115, Statutes of 2007), among other things,
enacted the additional requirement that a requesting
attorney, or a party representing himself/herself, has the
obligation to timely pay for the deposition product or
service, as defined, unless responsibility for the payment
is otherwise provided by law, or the deposition officer or
entity is notified in writing that another party or
identified person will be responsible for the payment.
AB 1211 sought to address the fact that deposition
reporting professionals, mostly non-lawyers, independent
contractors, and small businesses, had little recourse
under existing law when an attorney or client failed to pay
them in a timely manner. While in some cases they could
look to the State Bar and file a complaint against a
non-paying attorney, for a charge to be brought had to have
proof that the attorney intentionally decided not to pay
for the services. Therefore, the most common remedies were
traditional debt collection services and small claims
court, both of which require additional expense. A study
reportedly indicated that deposition reporting
professionals receive payment for their services as much as
90 days, and in some cases, as much as two years after
providing the service - not including deposition service
fees that are never paid. Therefore, instead of forcing
deposition professionals into the cumbersome process of
collections and small claims court, AB 1211 sought to
clearly state that a requesting attorney, or a person
representing him or herself, is responsible for timely
payment of deposition product or service costs. (See
Senate Judiciary Committee analysis of AB 1211 (2007-08
Session), April 18, 2007, p. 2.)
AB 2372
Page
4
This bill, sponsored by the Deposition Reporter Association
of California, seeks to further assist deposition
professionals who still face difficulty in receiving
payment of deposition product or service costs, even after
obtaining a judgment against the attorney to pay for the
services rendered. This bill requires that requesting
attorney or party appearing in propria persona, upon the
written request of a deposition officer who has obtained a
final judgment for payment of services, provide to the
deposition officer an address that can be used to
effectuate personal service for the purpose of an order of
examination, as specified.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/21/12)
Deposition Reporter Association of California (source)
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author, "AB 2372
will assist deposition officers in collecting money owed to
them by attorneys who have attempted to evade collection.
It requires an attorney, upon request, to provide a
deposition officer who has obtained a final judgment for
payment of services with an address that can be used to
effectuate legal service of process of collection-related
documents."
The bill's sponsor, the Deposition Reporter Association of
California (DRA), writes that "AB 2372 (Hill) seeks to
ensure that those very few attorneys adjudged to be liable
under (existing law) who then refuse to pay the final and
legal judgment cannot escape a deposition officer's efforts
to collect on a final judgment by evading service of
collection related legal documents." The DRA adds that:
? court reporters cannot be analogized to run-of-the-mill
vendors used by attorneys. This was confirmed just last
year. In Serrano v. Stefan Merli Plastering Co. (2011)
52 Cal.4th 1018, 1021, the �California] Supreme Court
held that court reporters who take depositions are
AB 2372
Page
5
"ministerial officers of the court," meaning officers
charged with the non-discretionary, inherently judicial
duties. They are extensions of the judge conducting a
legal proceeding. ? When lawyers book depositions with
reporters, they almost never use a P.O. box or mail drop
for their address. ? �A] reporter would be very unlikely
to do business with a lawyer that did provide such an
address at the outset �as it would be a warning sign
about payment of services and would pose difficulty for
ensuring receipt of delivered transcripts].
Infrequently, but frequently enough to be a stubborn
problem, a lawyer with a solid address at the time
deposition services are ordered will, while the invoice
is pending, or during informal efforts to collect
(letters and calls), close offices, move, and instead use
a mail drop or P.O. box. Because the �State] Bar permits
attorneys to disclose only a P.O. box or other mail drop
as their address on its website, and because certain
collection-related legal documents cannot be effectuated
through the mail, licensed reporters who have a valid and
final court judgment against an attorney pursuant to the
law ? are often frustrated in effectuating the judgment ?
Using expensive process servers, deposition reporters too
often must expend considerable sums chasing down these
few attorneys adept at avoiding service to collect on
small claims judgments (under $7,500). ?
�A]s officers of the court themselves, attorneys have
unique responsibilities when it comes to obeying the law
and being accountable to other officers of the court.
The law therefore ought not make it easy for lawyers -
those schooled in the law - to evade legal service of
process.
Prior legislation . AB 1211 (Price, Chapter 115, Statutes
of 2007) passed the Senate (40-0) on September 6, 2011.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 73-0, 4/30/12
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall,
Bill Berryhill, Block, Bonilla, Bradford, Buchanan,
Butler, Charles Calderon, Campos, Carter, Chesbro,
Conway, Cook, Dickinson, Donnelly, Eng, Feuer, Fletcher,
AB 2372
Page
6
Fong, Fuentes, Beth Gaines, Galgiani, Garrick, Gatto,
Gordon, Gorell, Grove, Hagman, Halderman, Hall, Harkey,
Hayashi, Roger Hern�ndez, Hill, Huber, Hueso, Huffman,
Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Lara, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma,
Mansoor, Mendoza, Miller, Mitchell, Monning, Morrell,
Nestande, Nielsen, Norby, Olsen, Pan, Perea, V. Manuel
P�rez, Portantino, Silva, Skinner, Solorio, Swanson,
Torres, Valadao, Wagner, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada,
John A. P�rez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Blumenfield, Brownley, Cedillo, Davis,
Furutani, Logue, Smyth
RJG:m 6/21/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****