Legislation Update

AB 1208

(Calderon, Charles [D] ) Trial courts: administration.
Status: 01/31/2012-In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.
Current Location: 01/31/2012-S RLS.
Summary: This bill would , among other things, delete the provisions relating to the manner in which the Judicial Council allocates funding for trial court operations, and would instead require that the amount allocated to each trial court from the amount appropriated for trial court operations be equal to the pro rata share of the prior fiscal year's adjusted base budget, except as provided. The bill would require the Legislature, based on the information submitted in the Governor's proposed budget, and prior to the allocation of funds to each local trial court in accordance with the allocation schedule adopted by the Judicial Council, to specify, in each annual Budget Act, the funding amounts to be allocated for programs of statewide concern from the total funds appropriated for trial court operations by the Legislature. The bill would prohibit the Judicial Council, or its designee, from withholding or expending any portion of the total funds appropriated for trial court operations by the Legislature for any statewide information technology or administrative infrastructure program that was not identified in the annual Budget Act, unless the Judicial Council, or its designee, first obtains the written approval of 662/3% of a proportional representation of all local trial courts. The bill would require the Judicial Council, or its designee, to allocate 100% of the funds appropriated for trial court operations according to each court's share of statewide operational funding. Existing law provides that the Judicial Council retains the ultimate responsibility to adopt a budget and allocate funding for the trial courts, as specified, and empowers the Judicial Council to authorize a trial court to carry unexpended funds over from one fiscal year to the next. This bill would delete those provisions and would instead provide that unexpended funds shall be the funds of that court, which may carry those funds over from one fiscal year to the next. The bill would prohibit those funds from being reallocated or redirected without the consent of the management of the trial court.

AB 1582

(Wagner [R] ) Civil actions: telephone appearances.
Status: 02/17/2012-Referred to Com. on JUD.
Current Location: 02/17/2012-A JUD.
Summary: Existing law authorizes a court to permit parties to appear by telephone in designated conferences, hearings, and proceedings in civil cases and to require, at its discretion, a personal appearance in those matters if it would assist in the determination of the proceedings or in the management or resolution of the case. Under existing law, the Judicial Council was required to adopt rules by January 1, 2008, prescribing the notice for telephonic appearances and the procedure for conducting those appearances. This bill would require a court to permit a telephonic appearance by parties and their attorneys and would expand the types of hearings, conferences, and proceedings where those telephonic appearances must be permitted by the court. The bill would specify that this requirement is subject to the court's discretion, which may require a personal appearance under the circumstances specified in existing law. The bill would extend the time for the Judicial Council to prescribe the notice and procedure for telephonic appearances to July 1, 2013.

AB 1630

(Olsen [R] ) Stanislaus County Superior Court: official court reporters.
Status: 03/20/2012-In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
Current Location: 03/14/2012-A JUD.
Calendar Events: 04/10/12 9 a.m. - State Capitol, Room 4202 ASM JUDICIARY
Summary: This bill would allow: The judges of the Stanislaus County Superior Court may appoint as many official superior court reporters pro tempore as the business of the court requires. They shall be unsalaried, but shall receive a per diem of 1/260 of Step 4 of the hourly rate specified in the most current salary table for superior court reporters established by the Stanislaus County Superior Court. SEC. 3. The repeal of subdivision (e) of Section 70047.1 of the Government Code by Section 1 of this act shall not affect the calculation of compensation for retirement purposes for any official court reporter first hired by the Stanislaus CountySuperior Court before January 1, 2013.

AB 2073

(Silva [R] ) Courts: electronic filing and service of documents.
Status: 03/08/2012-Referred to Com. on JUD.
Current Location: 03/08/2012-A JUD.
Summary: This bill would authorize a trial court, by order and at the discretion of the presiding judge, to require parties to eligible civil actions, as specified, to electronically file and serve documents, subject to rules adopted by the Judicial Council and other specified conditions.

AB 2076

(Ma [D] ) Official court reporter fee.
Status: 03/08/2012-Referred to Com. on JUD.
Current Location: 03/08/2012-A JUD.
Calendar Events: 04/10/12 9 a.m. - State Capitol, Room 4202 ASM JUDICIARY
Summary: This bill would permit the court in which the official court reporter fee was collected to retain that fee. The bill also would repeal the above-described reporting requirement of the Judicial Council.

AB 2119

(Nielsen [R] ) Courts: information technology projects.
Status: 02/24/2012-From printer. May be heard in committee March 25.
Current Location: 02/23/2012-A PRINT
Summary: This bill would make nonsubstantive changes to the provisions requiring review of judicial information technology projects, including the California Case Management System, by correcting obsolete cross-references to the State Chief Information Officer and the office of the State Chief Information Officer.

AB 2372

(Hill [D] ) Service of process: attorneys.
Status: 03/15/2012-Referred to Com. on JUD.
Current Location: 03/15/2012-A JUD.
Calendar Events: 04/17/12 9 a.m. - State Capitol, Room 4202 ASM JUDICIARY
Summary: Existing law provides for service of process and other notices by various means, including by mail or in person, and specifies the conditions for those various means of service of process. This bill would provide that, notwithstanding any other law, service of process by a client, former client, or officer of the court is effective upon an attorney if mailed to the address for the attorney appearing on the attorney's profile on the Internet Web site of the State Bar.

AB 2657

(Calderon, Charles [D] ) Electronic court reporting.
Status: 03/19/2012-Referred to Com. on JUD.
Current Location: 03/19/2012-A JUD.
Summary: Existing law regulates official court reporters in the superior courts. Under existing law, a court may use electronic recording equipment in a limited civil case, a misdemeanor or infraction case, or for the internal purpose of monitoring judicial officer performance. If electronic recording equipment is used, a transcript created with that equipment may be used whenever a transcript of court proceedings is necessary. This bill would require transcripts created with electronic recording equipment to designate as inaudible or unintelligible any sections that cannot be transcribed verbatim because those sections are not clearly recorded.

ACR 47

(Davis [D] ) Courts: 50th anniversary of service by African American justices.
Status: 05/11/2011-From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Amended and re-referred to Com. on RLS.
Current Location: 05/11/2011-S RLS.
Summary: This measure would acknowledge the 50th anniversary of service by African American justices in the California Courts, and would encourage all Californians to share in statewide and local celebrations throughout the year to recognize the contributions and diversity of these and other judicial trailblazers. The bill would also call upon the leadership of the judicial, legislative, and executive branches of government, and the greater legal, educational, and justice communities, to sponsor and participate in educational and outreach activities that highlight the work of the justices of the California Courts of Appeal and the California Supreme Court.

SB 326

(Yee [D] ) Court records: public access.
Status: 09/01/2011-From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
Current Location: 09/01/2011-A APPR.
Summary: Existing law requires the Judicial Council to adopt rules of court to establish the standards and guidelines for the creation, maintenance, reproduction, and preservation of court records, and requires that these standards and guidelines reflect industry standards for each medium used, ensure the accuracy and preserve the integrity of the records, and ensure that the public can access and reproduce the records. Specifically, unless access is otherwise restricted by law, court records created, maintained, preserved, or reproduced under specified provisions are required to be made reasonably accessible to all members of the public for viewing and duplication, and electronic court records must be viewable at the court, whether or not they are accessible remotely. Additionally, rules of court require courts to provide public access to electronic records, as specified. This bill would require the Judicial Council , in consultation with stakeholder groups, and within 18 months of the date of enactment of this act, to adopt a rule of court to require courts that have fully implemented the California Case Management System to provide the public , to the extent possible and practicable, with same-day access to case-initiating civil and criminal court records, as defined.

SB 1428

(Blakeslee [R] ) Legislative meetings: recording and transcription.
Status: 03/22/2012-Referred to Com. on RLS.
Current Location: 03/22/2012-S RLS.
Summary: This bill would require each house of the Legislature to make an audio, or audio and video, recording of every open and public meeting of a house of the Legislature or a committee thereof, and would require those recordings to be transcribed. The bill would specify that the transcriptions shall be legislative records for purposes of the Legislative Open Records Act and require that the Legislative Counsel make the transcriptions available to the public in electronic form. The bill would require each house of the Legislature to make the transcriptions in a manner that utilizes the best available technology in audio transcription software in order to minimize costs.

SB 1489

(Harman [R] ) Courts: destruction of court records.
Status: 03/22/2012-Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
Current Location: 03/22/2012-S PUB. S.
Calendar Events: 04/24/12 9:30 a.m. - Room 3191 SEN PUBLIC SAFETY
Summary: Existing law authorizes the court clerk to destroy court records after notice of destruction, if there is no request and order for transfer of the records, upon the expiration of specified time periods after final disposition of the case. Court records in capital felony cases are required to be retained permanently, unless the charge is disposed of by acquittal or a sentence less than death, in which circumstance the case is reclassified and different time periods for retention apply. This bill would permit the destruction of court records in capital felony cases one year after the execution or death of the defendant while awaiting execution.

SB 1514

(Anderson [R] ) Death sentences: automatic appeal.
Status: 03/28/2012-Set for hearing April 17.
Current Location: 03/22/2012-S PUB. S.
Calendar Events: 04/17/12 9:30 a.m. - John L. Burton Hearing Room (4203) SEN PUBLIC SAFETY
Summary: This bill would remove the automatic appeal to the State Supreme Court in cases where a judgment of death is rendered and would instead provide that an appeal may be taken to an appellate court in the same manner as an appeal where a judgment of death is not rendered in a murder case, except as required by the above provisions of law pertaining to the expeditious resolution of capital cases. The bill would make conforming changes. The bill would become operative only if Senate Constitutional Amendment ____ of the 2011-12 Regular Session is approved by the voters.

SB 1574

(Committee on Judiciary ) Discovery: electronically stored information.
Status: 03/26/2012-Referred to Com. on JUD.
Current Location: 03/26/2012-S JUD.
Summary: The Civil Discovery Act authorizes the use of certain types of technology, as defined, in conducting discovery in a complex case. This bill would delete those provisions, and instead generally provide that when any method of discovery permits, compels, prevents, or limits the production, inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of documents or tangible things, the same method would also apply to electronically stored information. The Civil Discovery Act requires any documents produced in response to an inspection demand to be produced as they are kept in the usual course of business, or be organized and labeled to correspond with the categories in the demand. This bill would make this provision applicable, in addition, to the production of electronically stored information. The bill would also provide that if a party responding to a demand for production of electronically stored information objects to a specified form for producing the information, or if no form is specified in the demand, the responding party shall state in its response the form in which it intends to produce each type of information. In general if a demand for production does not specify a form or forms for producing a type of electronically stored information, the responding party would be required to produce the information in the form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a form that is reasonably usable, but need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.

SCR 38

(Price [D] ) Courts: 50th anniversary of service by African American justices.
Status: 05/02/2011-Referred to Com. on RLS.
Current Location: 05/02/2011-A RLS.
Summary: This measure would acknowledge the 50th anniversary of service by African American justices in the California Courts, and would encourage all Californians to share in statewide and local celebrations throughout the year to recognize the contributions and diversity of these and other judicial trailblazers. The bill would also call upon the leadership of the judicial, legislative, and executive branches of government, and the greater legal, educational, and justice communities, to sponsor and participate in educational and outreach activities that highlight the work of the justices of the California Courts of Appeal and the California Supreme Court.