BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2612
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 17, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mike Feuer, Chair
AB 2612 (Achadjian) - As Amended: March 29, 2012
SUBJECT : COURTS: WITNESS FEES FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYEE ATTENDANCE
KEY ISSUE : SHOULD THE DEPOSIT OWED TO A PUBLIC ENTITY WHEN ITS
EMPLOYEE IS SUBPOENAED BE INCREASED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN
TWENTY-FIVE YEARS TO REFLECT THE INCREASE IN COSTS SINCE THAT
TIME?
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.
SYNOPSIS
This non-controversial bill revises the amount that parties to a
legal proceeding must deposit with public entities when a
specified employee is required to remain in attendance in court
pursuant to a civil subpoena. Under current law, when a party
requests a peace officer, firefighter, state employee, or county
employee to appear at a civil trial, the party must reimburse
the employee for costs associated with the appearance -
including salary, travel, expenses, administrative costs, and
benefits. In order to secure the reimbursement, at least in
part, the subpoenaing party must currently deposit a $150
witness fee when issuing a subpoena. This deposit fee has not
been increased since 1986, despite the substantial increase in
salaries and travel expenses since that time. This bill
therefore seeks to increase the deposit amount for public
employee civil trial attendance from $150 to $300 per day in
order to more reasonably reflect the current cost to the public
entity.
SUMMARY : Seeks to increase the amount of the deposit owed by
parties who subpoena public employees to attend a civil trial in
order to more reasonably reflect the current cost to the public
entity. This deposit fee has not been increased since 1986,
despite the substantial increase in salaries and travel expenses
since that time. Specifically, this bill increases the amount
AB 2612
Page 2
that a party must deposit with a public entity when the party
requests a peace officer, firefighter, state employee, or county
employee to appear in civil court pursuant to a civil subpoena
from $150 to $300.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides for subpoenaing the attendance of certain public
employees, including peace officers and firefighters, with
regard to events or transactions they have perceived or
investigated in the course of their duties, and for the
payment and reimbursement of the public employee's
compensation and traveling expenses. (Government Code Section
68097.2.)
2)Requires the party at whose request the subpoena is issued to
reimburse the employing public entity for these costs by
tendering the amount of $150 to the person accepting the
subpoena for each day the public employee is required to
remain in attendance pursuant to the subpoena. (Government
Code Section 68097.2.)
3)Requires the public entity to refund any excess amount paid,
and the party at whose request the subpoena is issued to pay
any shortfall, relative to the actual expenses incurred by the
public entity in connection with the public employee complying
with the subpoena. (Government Code Section 68097.2.)
COMMENTS : This bill seeks to provide a long-overdue increase in
the court subpoena deposit (CSD) in order to better keep pace
with increases of salaries and travel expenses for public
entities. There has not been an increase in the $150 CSD
deposit since 1986. In addition, many legal firms that have
been billed for their court fees still refuse to pay the
"invoice with balance due" (IWBD). Raising the current CSD
would require law firms to deposit a more reasonable amount up
front and could result in a more reasonable fiscal remuneration
to cash-strapped public entities by reducing the number of
IWBDs.
In support of the measure, the author states:
AB 2612
Page 3
�T]he $150 court subpoena deposit has not been increased
since 1986 even though salaries and travel expenses have
increased dramatically since then. �This bill will]
increase the deposit amount from $150 to $300 per day, to
reflect a reasonable amount to cover the current costs to
the public entity.
California's Failure to Increase the Court Subpoena Deposit
Since 1986 Leaves the Required Amount Woefully Inadequate :
After making several increases in the CSD between 1963 and 1986,
the state has not made a single increase in this amount since
that time. This gap of more than 25 years represents a
significant disconnect between the increased expenses associated
with the specified employees appearing in court and the amount
of reimbursements made to their public agencies.
The Legislature has previously recognized the need to increase
the CSD to keep pace with increased expenses by public entities.
In 1963, the CSD stood at $25. However, this was increased to
$45 in 1969, $75 in 1974, $125 in 1980, and finally up to $150
in 1986. Thus, within a 23-year period, the CSD amount
increased by 600%. If this rate of increase is applied to the
25-year period since 1986, supporters note that the CSD would
have increased by 1,154% over the 1986 amount, bringing the
ultimate CSD total to $1,731. In light of this statistical
analysis, proponents suggest that the proposed increase in the
CSD rate to $300 per day appears more than reasonable. Amidst
our current financial climate and the increasing strains on
public entities, proponents assert this modest increase in the
CSD represents a long overdue step to help public entities
better afford the costs of their employees required to attend
civil trials.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : In support, the California Highway Patrol
(CHP) states:
�The] increase �proposed by this measure] allows public
entities to recover more of the cost up front decreasing
the need for these agencies to spend time and effort with
the collection process. AB 2612 would benefit all public
AB 2612
Page 4
entities involved with the civil subpoena deposit process.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Highway Patrol (CHP)
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by: Drew Liebert & Zachary Baron / JUD. /
(916) 319-2334