BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2612
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 2612 (Achadjian)
As Amended April 30, 2012
Majority vote
JUDICIARY 10-0 APPROPRIATIONS 17-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Feuer, Wagner, Atkins, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Harkey, |
| |Dickinson, Gorell, Huber, | |Blumenfield, Bradford, |
| |Jones, Monning, | |Charles Calderon, Campos, |
| |Wieckowski, Alejo | |Davis, Donnelly, Gatto, |
| | | |Hall, Hill, Lara, |
| | | |Mitchell, Nielsen, Norby, |
| | | |Solorio, Wagner |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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. Specifically, this bill increases the amount 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 $275.
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.
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.
3)Requires the public entity to refund any excess amount paid,
and the party at whose request the subpoena is issued to pay
AB 2612
Page 2
any shortfall, relative to the actual expenses incurred by the
public entity in connection with the public employee complying
with the subpoena.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, no direct fiscal impact, as the bill only modifies
the amount of the deposit. Pursuant to current law, differences
between actual costs for an employee's appearance and any
amounts deposited must be settled up by the public entity and
the party who requested the subpoena.
COMMENTS : This bill seeks to provide an 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.
After making several increases in the CSD between 1963 and 1986,
the CSD has not been increased since that time. According to
the author, this gap of more than 25 years represents a
significant gap 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. In light of those relatively higher increases in
earlier years, proponents suggest that the proposed increase in
the CSD rate to $275 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.
Analysis Prepared by: Drew Liebert / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
FN: 0003792
AB 2612
Page 3