Senator Noreen Evans, Chair

AB 2076 (Ma)

Page 1 of 8

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Noreen Evans, Chair

2011-2012 Regular Session

Bill No: AB 2076 (Author: Ma)

As Amended Amended: June 25, 2012

Hearing Date: July 3, 2012

Fiscal: Yes

Urgency: No

Consultant: RD

SUBJECT

Court Reporters: Fees

DESCRIPTION

Existing law also requires that $30 from specified civil filing fees that are distributed to the Trial Court Trust Fund (TCTF) be used for services of an official court reporter in civil proceedings. This bill would instead mandate that the $30 be retained by the court that collected it, while still requiring that it be used for the services of an official court reporter in civil proceedings. This bill would also strike existing intent language that allows the Judicial Council to allocate these funds to replace reductions in general fund appropriations to the TCTF, and, instead, specify that in trial courts where official court reporting services in civil proceedings are not provided, the $30 portion retained from these uniform filing fees for court reporters in civil proceedings shall instead revert to the TCTF for redistribution to trial courts that do provide these services on a pro rata basis and require that they be used to provide those services.

BACKGROUND

California law requires that an official reporter or official reporter pro tempore of the superior court take down in shorthand all testimony, objections made, rulings of the court, exceptions taken, arraignments, pleas, sentences, arguments of the attorneys to the jury, and statements and remarks made and oral instructions given by the judge or other judicial officer, in specified cases. These cases include, among others, civil cases that are ordered by the court or requestedby a party. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 269.)

Separately, California law, with the enactment of AB 233 (Escutia and Pringle, Ch. 850, Stats. 1997), consolidated all court funding at the state level, giving the Legislature authority to make appropriations and the Judicial Council responsibility to allocate funds to state courts. In doing so, it required that all court reporters fees collected by the trial courts be deposited into the Trial Court Trust Fund (TCTF), where nearly all court-collected fees are now deposited. The court reporter fees are then returned to the trial courts as part of their annual allocation and are distributed on a pro rata basis, as opposed to on the basis of the dollars collected.

More specifically, the Government Code requires that certain fees be charged and be used to pay for the cost for services of an official court reporter in civil proceedings. Among these, existing law requires that $30 from specified civil filing feesthat are distributed to the TCTF be used to provide for services of an official court reporter. However, California law has also specified through codified legislative intent that that while it intends for this $30 to continue as an incentive for courts to use official court reporters in civil proceedings, nothing affects the Judicial Council’s authority to allocate these funds to replace reductions in general fund appropriations to the Trial Court Trust Fund. (See Gov. Code Sec. 68086.1(c).)

The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) is required to annually report to the Legislature, as require under existing law about court reporter fees collected under these sections of law and the expenditures for court reporters in superior court civil proceedings for the same periods. Accordingly, in February 2012, the AOC reported that $34,040,630 was remitted to the TCTF as follows: (1) $12,485,932 came from fees paid by parties to civil proceedings pursuant to Government Code Section 68086 for the services of an official court reporter in proceedings lasting more than one hour on the first day and each succeeding judicial day; and (2) $21,554,698 is attributable to the $30 fee required to be deposited in the TCTF from first paper filings and responses for civil proceedings in the superior court where the amount demanded is over $10,000. During that same fiscal year 2010-2011, the estimated amount spent for the services of court reporters in superior court civil proceedings was $82,770,473. (See AOC, Report to the Judicial Council, Judicial Branch Report to the Legislature: Court Reporter Fees Collected and Expenditures for Court Reporter Services in Superior Court Civil Proceedings for Fiscal Year 2010–2011 (Feb. 22, 2012) < [as of June 24, 2012].)

This bill, co-sponsored by the California Court Reporters Association and California Official Reporters Association, seeks to (1) increase the fees used to pay for the costs of court reporters and (2) allow local courts to retain those fees and require that those fees only be used for the provision of court reporters in civil proceedings, unless the court does not provide for court reporters in civil proceedings, in which case the bill provides for those fees collected to revert to the TCTF and be distributed by the Judicial Council only for the provision of court reporter services in civil proceedings. In doing so, the bill would also remove the Judicial Council’s ability to allocate such funds to replace reductions in general fund appropriations to the TCTF.

CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW

1. Existing law, in relevant part, requires that an official reporter or official reporter pro tempore of the superior court take down in shorthand all testimony, objections made, rulings of the court, exceptions taken, arraignments, pleas, sentences, arguments of the attorneys to the jury, and statements and remarks made and oral instructions given by the judge or other judicial officer, in specified cases, including, among other things, in a civil case, on the order of the court or at the request of a party. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 269.)

Existing law establishes the Trial Court Trust Fund, as specified. (Gov. Code Sec. 68085.)

Existing law requires that, among other fees, the fees collected by the trial courts for official court reporters be deposited in a bank account established by the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC). Existing law requires the AOC to distribute those deposits as provided, with the remainder going to the Trial Court Trust Fund. (Gov. Code Sec. 68085.1.)

Existing law, among other things, provides that for each civil trial court proceeding lasting more than one hour, a fee equal to one-half day of services shall be charged to the parties, on a pro rata basis, and that the fees collected shall be used only to pay the cost for services of an official court reporter in civil proceedings pursuant to Section 269 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (Gov. Code Sec. 68086.)

This bill would add that for each proceeding lasting less than an hour, a fee of $30 shall be charged for the reasonable cost of the services of an official court reporter pursuant to Section 269 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

This bill would specify that any fees collected for proceedings lasting for more than one hour, as specified above, shall be retained by the court that collects the fee to use for the services of an official court reporter in civil proceedings.

This bill would codify the intent of the Legislature to continue an incentive to courts to use the services of an official court reporter in civil proceedings.

This bill makes other technical and non-substantive changes.

2. Existing law requires that $30 of each of several specified civil filing fees distributed to the Trial Court Trust Fund be used for services of an official court reporter in civil proceedings. Existing law codifies the legislative intent for this $30 to continue as an incentive for courts to use official court reporters in civil proceedings, but that nothing affects the Judicial Council’s authority to allocate these funds to replace reductions in general fund appropriations to the Trial Court Trust Fund. Existing law also requires that the portion of the distribution to the Fund to be used for services of an official court reporter in civil proceedings, as specified, only be used in trial courts that use the services of an official court reporter in civil proceedings. (Gov. Code Sec. 68086.1.)

This bill would instead provide that this $30 shall be retained by the court in which the fee was collected and be used to provide services of an official court reporter in civil proceedings.

This bill would strike the existing legislative intent language codified above and instead provide that in trial courts where official court reporting services are not provided in civil proceedings, these fees that are to otherwise be retained by the court as proposed by this bill are to revert to the Trial Court Trust Fund for redistribution to trial courts providing official court reporting services in civil proceedings, on a pro rata basis, and shall be used to provide the services of an official court reporter in civil proceedings.

3. Existing law provides that, notwithstanding any other provision of law, whenever a daily transcript is ordered in a civil case requiring the services of more than one court reporter, the party requesting the daily transcript must pay an additional specified rate and that such fee shall be distributed to the court to offset the cost of the additional reporter. (Gov. Code Sec. 69953.5.)

This bill would instead provide that such fee be retained by the court in which it was collected to offset the cost of the additional reporter.

COMMENT

1. Stated need for the bill

According to the author:

AB 2076 will assist our local courts to continue to offer important judicial services by incentivizing the efficient and effective collection of mandated civil [court] reporter fees. Due to State budget cuts, California’s courts have faced significant funding issues in recent years. Since 2008, California’s courts have seen reductions totaling more than $652 million, resulting in cuts that have critically affected how our courts are ale to provide judicial services. Additionally, should the Governor’s Initiative fail in November, another $125 million in trigger cuts could occur, resulting in additional challenges in the state’s ability to administer and deliver justice. . . .

Millions of attorneys and litigants depend on court reporting to provide a proper legal transcript for courtroom proceedings [such as] trials, hearings, and depositions to ensure that necessary documentation and accurate records are made available. The cuts to court funding have been so detrimental that some courts have stopped providing court reporters altogether. . . . There has been a growing concern over the inconsistent collection of court reporter fees across counties, and whether the fees have been adequately re-appropriated to local trial courts. . . .

Under the current system, the money collected locally for court reporter services goes to the AOC [Administrative Office of the Courts] and then is dispersed back out to the trial courts. Local courts often don’t see the fees that they collected returned to them in adequate amounts so they have little incentive to increase collection rates. [Also] [u]nder current law, litigants don’t have to pay for the services of an official court reporter if their proceeding lasts under an hour. AB 2076 is designed to allow the local trial courts to retain the dollars generated and collected locally for civil court reporter services. The elimination of the middle man and local retention will provide better accountability for these funds, incentivize collection, and hopefully provide more money for these essential services. AB 2076 also closes a loophole in the collection of these fees that is simply no longer feasible given our difficult budget climate by including a flat $30 fee if the litigants in a very short proceeding want a court reporter.

The California Official Court Reporters Association, a co-sponsor of this bill, writes that “[u]p and down the state, trial courts under incredible budget pressure have slashed the services of official court reporters. Many more places offer no reporting services at all for certain proceedings and simply rely on litigants to provide their own private reporters or go with none at all. This has a significant negative impact on the ability of litigants to have an accurate record, in particular those without the resources to ensure that a reporter is present.” Also a co-sponsor of the bill, the California Court Reporters Association adds, “in order to maximize the number of mandated court reporter use fees collected, we propose that the court reporter user fees should not only be imposed locally, but most importantly, they should be retained locally.” (Emphasis in original.)

2. This billseeks to incentivize courts to aggressively collect court reporter fees but removes Judicial Council’s ability to redirect funds, as necessary, to adjust for budget cuts

Existing law provides that for each civil trial court proceeding lasting more than one hour, a fee equal to one-half day of services shall be charged to the parties, on a pro rata basis, and that the fees collected shall be used only to pay the cost for services of an official court reporter in civil proceedings, as specified. This bill seeks to incentivize courts to aggressively collect court reporter fees by allowing them to keep those fees that they collect and also requiring a $30 flat fee for civil proceedings be charged for any proceedings lasting less than one hour for which a court reporter is provided. The courts would also retain any fees collected pursuant to this new $30 fee. Similarly, this bill would mandate that, moving forward, the $30 portion of specified civil filing fees that are currently distributed to the TCTF instead be retained by the court that collected it, while still requiring that it be used for the services of an official court reporter in civil proceedings. If a particular court does not provide for court reporters in civil proceedings, the $30 portion of the civil filing fees collected by that court would revert to the TCTF and be distributed by Judicial Council to provide for the use of court reporters in civil proceedings. Staff notes that, essentially, those counties whose fees revert to the TCTF would be funding the provision of services that are not available in their own counties. In doing so, the bill would also remove the Judicial Council’s ability to allocate such funds to replace reductions in general fund appropriations to the TCTF.

Proponents note that the current system has resulted in the inconsistent and inefficient collection of fees from county to county and that budget cuts have only worsened the situation for court reporters and court reporting services. As noted by the Northern California Court Reporters Association, “official court reporters who work in the courtrooms of our state play a critical and essential role in ensuring equal access to justice for all. These highly specialized court-trained court reporters provide not only a verbatim record of civil proceedings, but also perform a myriad of other functions, including being available at all times to read back testimony to jurors, providing an instant visual display of the proceedings to judicial officers and protecting the integrity of the record during all civil proceedings.” Proponents of this bill, as noted in the statements of the author and co-sponsors in Comment 1, above, believe that by allowing courts to retain the fees they collect, this bill would greater incentivize the collection of those fees.

On June 25, 2012, the author amended this bill in effort to help address Judicial Council concerns about inadvertently lowering filing fees in courts that do not provide for court reporters in civil proceedings (therefore creating non-uniform civil filing fees), and about removing the Judicial Council’s flexibility to evaluate options to keep court doors open during budget cuts. As such, the bill currently provides that in trial courts where official court reporting services are not provided in civil proceedings, the $30 portion retained from these uniform filing fees for court reporters shall instead revert to the TCTF for redistribution to trial courts that do provide civil court reporter services on a pro rata basis and require that they be used to fund those services.

The Judicial Council notes that these amendments do not remove their opposition to the bill and argue that:

Although the amendments do not risk loss of total filing fee revenue, they would result in a significant reduction to some courts, on top of all the budget reductions courts have been, and will continue to grapple with. The council cannot support reductions of this nature to trial court operations at this time. Furthermore, the amendments pose a number of implementation issues: are courts that provide reporters in some civil law and motion hearings, but not all, and not in civil trials, eligible to receive this funding? Are courts eligible to receive this funding if they provider reporters in family law, but not unlimited civil proceedings? What if a court re-deployed court reporters in the middle of a month, is the court eligible to receive the fee revenue for that month? These are but a few examples of the implementation issues.”