Existing law authorizes a superior court to appoint official court reporters and specifies the fees for court reporting services. Existing law prohibits courts from using remote court reporting, as defined, to produce the record of any court proceedings and from expending any funds to purchase equipment or software to facilitate the use of remote court reporting.

This bill would, notwithstanding these provisions, authorize, beginning July 1, 2025, the Superior Courts of the Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Los Angeles, Mendocino, Monterey, Orange, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Tulare, and Ventura to conduct pilot projects to study the potential use of remote court reporting to make the verbatim record of certain court proceedings. The bill would require, if the superior court elects to conduct a pilot project, the remote court reporting to be performed only by official reporters who meet specified qualifications and conditions. The bill would require the official reporters to be physically located in a court facility while performing the remote court reporting or, alternatively, authorize the superior court and the exclusive representative of the official reporters to meet and confer to reach agreement no later than June 30, 2025, to include additional offsite locations to test remote court reporting, as specified. The bill would authorize no more than 20 percent of full-time official court reporters, or for courts with fewer than 10 full-time official court reporters, 2 court reporters, in the participating county to participate in the pilot project. The bill would specify the requirements for participating superior courts to be equipped by June 30, 2025. The bill would authorize remote court proceedings to be used to report proceedings in limited civil, law and motion for unlimited civil cases, family law, child support, probate, juvenile dependency, juvenile delinquency, felony and misdemeanor criminal proceedings except preliminary hearings, trials, and death penalty cases, and would authorize transcripts created through remote court reporting to be used whenever a transcript of court proceedings is required. The bill would prohibit court reporters participating in the pilot project from being held responsible for failures in technology or equipment and, if technology or audibility issues inhibit the court reporters ability to accurately capture and certify a verbatim record, the bill would require the court to temporarily suspend the proceeding until the issues can be resolved. The bill would prohibit a trial court from retaliating or threatening to retaliate against a court reporter who notifies the judicial officer that technology or audibility issues are impeding the creation and certification of the verbatim record of a proceeding. The bill would require each participating court to submit specified data and information to the Judicial Council on the results of the pilot project. The bill would require the Judicial Council to compile the results from each participating court and to prepare a report for the Legislature within 6 months of the conclusion of the pilot project. The bill would require the pilot projects to terminate no later than July 1, 2026, or earlier if a participating court determines that the use of remote court reporting is prejudicing the rights of litigants or the interests of justice.

Existing law authorizes a superior court to appoint official court reporters and specifies the fees for court reporting services. Existing law prohibits courts from using remote court reporting, as defined, to produce the record of any court proceedings and from expending any funds to purchase equipment or software to facilitate the use of remote court reporting.

This bill would, notwithstanding these provisions, authorize, beginning July 1, 2025, the Superior Courts of the Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Los Angeles, Mendocino, Monterey, Orange, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Tulare, and Ventura to conduct pilot projects to study the potential use of remote court reporting to make the verbatim record of certain court proceedings. The bill would require, if the superior court elects to conduct a pilot project, the remote court reporting to be performed only by official reporters who meet specified qualifications and conditions. The bill would require the official reporters to be physically located in a court facility while performing the remote court reporting or, alternatively, authorize the superior court and the exclusive representative of the official reporters to meet and confer to reach agreement no later than June 30, 2025, to include additional offsite locations to test remote court reporting, as specified. The bill would authorize no more than 20 percent of full-time official court reporters, or for courts with fewer than 10 full-time official court reporters, 2 court reporters, in the participating county to participate in the pilot project. The bill would specify the requirements for participating superior courts to be equipped by June 30, 2025. The bill would authorize remote court proceedings to be used to report proceedings in limited civil, law and motion for unlimited civil cases, family law, child support, probate, juvenile dependency, juvenile delinquency, felony and misdemeanor criminal proceedings except preliminary hearings, trials, and death penalty cases, and would authorize transcripts created through remote court reporting to be used whenever a transcript of court proceedings is required. The bill would prohibit court reporters participating in the pilot project from being held responsible for failures in technology or equipment and, if technology or audibility issues inhibit the court reporters ability to accurately capture and certify a verbatim record, the bill would require the court to temporarily suspend the proceeding until the issues can be resolved. The bill would prohibit a trial court from retaliating or threatening to retaliate against a court reporter who notifies the judicial officer that technology or audibility issues are impeding the creation and certification of the verbatim record of a proceeding. The bill would require each participating court to submit specified data and information to the Judicial Council on the results of the pilot project. The bill would require the Judicial Council to compile the results from each participating court and to prepare a report for the Legislature within 6 months of the conclusion of the pilot project. The bill would require the pilot projects to terminate no later than July 1, 2026, or earlier if a participating court determines that the use of remote court reporting is prejudicing the rights of litigants or the interests of justice.

Existing law authorizes a superior court to appoint official court reporters and specifies the fees for court reporting services. Existing law prohibits courts from using remote court reporting, as defined, to produce the record of any court proceedings and from expending any funds to purchase equipment or software to facilitate the use of remote court reporting.

This bill would, notwithstanding these provisions, authorize, beginning July 1, 2025, the Superior Courts of the Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Los Angeles, Mendocino, Monterey, Orange, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Tulare, and Ventura to conduct pilot projects to study the potential use of remote court reporting to make the verbatim record of certain court proceedings. The bill would require, if the superior court elects to conduct a pilot project, the remote court reporting to be performed only by official reporters who meet specified qualifications and conditions. The bill would authorize, after 6 months of meaningful remote court reporting testing, the exclusive representations of the official reports of the participating superior courts to agree to include additional offsite locations to test remote court reporting and to agree on the equipment needed for these locations, and how the participating courts will provide that equipment. The bill would require this agreement to be reached by January 1, 2026. require the official reporters to be physically located in a court facility while performing the remote court reporting or, alternatively, authorize the superior court and the exclusive representative of the official reporters to meet and confer to reach agreement no later than June 30, 2025, to include additional offsite locations to test remote court reporting, as specified. The bill would authorize no more than 10 20 percent of total courtrooms in a participating court to be equipped to participate in a pilot project. full-time official court reporters, or for courts with fewer than 10 full-time official court reporters, 2 court reporters, in the participating county to participate in the pilot project. The bill would specify the requirements for participating superior courts to be equipped by June 30, 2025. The bill would authorize remote court proceedings to be used to report proceedings in limited civil cases, civil law and motion cases, family law cases, child support cases, probate cases, and felony and misdemeanor arraignments and pleas, limited civil, law and motion for unlimited civil cases, family law, child support, probate, juvenile dependency, juvenile delinquency, felony and misdemeanor criminal proceedings except preliminary hearings, trials, and death penalty cases, and would authorize transcripts created through remote court reporting to be used whenever a transcript of court proceedings is required. The bill would require the presiding judge of a participating superior court to appoint a committee, as specified, to prepare a report to the Legislature on the results of the pilot project and would require the committees report to be presented to the Legislature within 6 months of the conclusion of the pilot project. The bill would prohibit court reporters participating in the pilot project from being held responsible for failures in technology or equipment and, if technology or audibility issues inhibit the court reporters ability to accurately capture and certify a verbatim record, the bill would require the court to temporarily suspend the proceeding until the issues can be resolved. The bill would prohibit a trial court from retaliating or threatening to retaliate against a court reporter who notifies the judicial officer that technology or audibility issues are impeding the creation and certification of the verbatim record of a proceeding. The bill would require each participating court to submit specified data and information to the Judicial Council on the results of the pilot project. The bill would require the Judicial Council to compile the results from each participating court and to prepare a report for the Legislature within 6 months of the conclusion of the pilot project. The bill would require the pilot projects to terminate no later than July 1, 2026, or earlier if a participating court determines that the use of remote court reporting is prejudicing the rights of litigants or the interests of justice.

Existing law authorizes a superior court to appoint official court reporters and specifies the fees for court reporting services. Existing law prohibits courts from using remote court reporting, as defined, to produce the record of any court proceedings and from expending any funds to purchase equipment or software to facilitate the use of remote court reporting.

This bill would, notwithstanding these provisions, authorize, beginning July 1, 2025, the Superior Courts of the Counties of Alameda, Los Angeles, Mendocino, Monterey, Orange, San Diego, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Tulare, and Ventura to conduct pilot projects to study the potential use of remote court reporting to make the verbatim record of certain court proceedings. The bill would require, if the superior court elects to conduct a pilot project, the remote court reporting to be performed only by official reporters who meet specified qualifications and conditions. The bill would authorize, after 6 months of meaningful remote court reporting testing, the exclusive representations of the official reports of the participating superior courts to agree to include additional offsite locations to test remote court reporting and to agree on the equipment needed for these locations, and how the participating courts will provide that equipment. The bill would require this agreement to be reached by January 1, 2026. The bill would authorize no more than 10 percent of total courtrooms in a participating court to be equipped to participate in a pilot project. The bill would specify the requirements for participating superior courts to be equipped by June 30, 2025. The bill would authorize remote court proceedings to be used to report proceedings in limited civil cases, civil law and motion cases, family law cases, child support cases, probate cases, and felony and misdemeanor arraignments and pleas, and would authorize transcripts created through remote court reporting to be used whenever a transcript of court proceedings is required. The bill would require the presiding judge of a participating superior court to appoint a committee, as specified, to prepare a report to the Legislature on the results of the pilot project and would require the committees report to be presented to the Legislature within 6 months of the conclusion of the pilot project. The bill would require the pilot projects to terminate no later than July 1, 2026, or earlier if a participating court determines that the use of remote court reporting is prejudicing the rights of litigants or the interests of justice.

Existing law requires that, whenever any official advertising, notice, resolution, order, or other matter of any nature whatsoever is required by law to be published in a newspaper, that publication be made only in a newspaper of general circulation. Existing law defines a newspaper of general circulation as a newspaper that is published for the dissemination of local or telegraphic news and intelligence of a general character, with a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, that has been established, printed, and published at regular intervals, as specified, for at least one year before the date of the publication, notice, or advertisement.

This bill would make nonsubstantive changes in the definition of a newspaper of general circulation.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 3013

Author:(Maienschein)

As Amended Ver:August 19, 2024

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Establishes a remote court reporting pilot program to be deployed in the superior courts of specified counties.

Major Provisions

1. Authorizes the superior courts of the Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Los Angeles, Mendocino, Monterey, Orange, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Tulare, and Ventura to conduct pilot projects to study the potential use of remote court reporting to make the verbatim record of certain court proceedings.
2. Authorizes the pilot projects provided for in 1) to commence July 1, 2025.
3. Requires the pilot projects authorized by 1) to adhere to the following requirements:
   1. The remote court reporting can be performed only by full-time licensed and official reporters employed by the participating superior court who have at least two years of courtroom experience in a California superior court;
   2. Court reporters who participate in the remote court reporting pilot project are to be treated in the same manner as other official reporters employed by the court, including, but not limited to, compensation, benefits, classification, seniority, job description, and bargaining units;
   3. The official reporters must be physically located in a court facility while performing the remote court reporting. Alternatively, the superior court and exclusive representative of the court reporter may meet and confer and agree, by June 30, 2025 to establish additional offsite locations to test remote court reporting. Provides that such agreement specify the equipment needed for these locations and how the participating court will provide that equipment;
   4. No more than 20% of the total court reporters in the participating court may be equipped to participate in the pilot project unless the court is in a county with a population greater than two million in which case only 10% of the total pool of court reporters may participate;
   5. Remote court reporting is limited to proceedings in limited civil cases, law and motion for unlimited civil cases, family law, child support, probate, juvenile dependency, juvenile delinquency, and felony and misdemeanor criminal proceedings except preliminary hearings, trials, and death penalty cases; and
   6. Any transcripts created through remote court reporting as part of the pilot project may be used whenever a transcript of court proceedings is required.
4. Requires each superior court participating in the pilot project to obtain feedback from court stakeholders, and report the feedback to the Judicial Council, including the following stakeholders:
   1. At least two judicial officers who participated in the pilot project;
   2. At least two official reporters chosen by the exclusive bargaining representative of the official reporters of the participating superior court; and
   3. At least two attorneys who regularly practice in the participating superior court.
   4. The Chief Public Defender or their designee, as specified; and
   5. The District Attorney or their designee, as specified.
5. Requires the Judicial Council to report on the pilot program to the Legislature, within six months of the conclusion of the pilot project, as specified.
6. Requires a courtroom being utilized for the pilot program to be properly equipped to operate the pilot project as follows:
   1. Individual microphones are provided for each participant, including the judicial officer, witnesses, jury box, counsel table, and lectern or podium or other place where participants may speak;
   2. The courtroom has cameras with a dedicated frontal view of the judicial officer, witnesses, jury box (unless jurors are present), counsel tables, and lectern or podium or other place where participants may speak;
   3. The courtroom has speakers that allow the court reporter to be heard clearly throughout the courtroom;
   4. The remote location has speakers and a microphone for the court reporter;
   5. The remote location has a camera for the court reporter; and
   6. All locations have two-way means of communication between the court reporter and the judicial officer such that the court reporter has the ability to mute and unmute their own audio to maintain communication with the judicial officer.

Senate Amendments

1. Clarify the technological requirements of the project.
2. Clarify that the Judicial Council and not the superior courts must submit a report to the Legislature regarding the pilot program.
3. Clarify the scope of proceedings that may be part of the pilot program.
4. Clarify which courts and court reporters are authorized to participate in the pilot program.

COMMENTS

In recent years, California law has moved to increase the use of remote technology in court proceedings. While the pandemic spurred significant advancements in online teleconferencing technology, the use of remote technology in court proceedings has proved to be highly contentious in the Legislature. As a result of compromises by all stakeholders, the use of remote technology now generally requires the consent of the various parties and the court reporter's physical presence in the courtroom to protect the accuracy of the record. Recognizing that technology may exist to enable a court reporter to record the official transcript of proceedings from a remote location, this measure authorizes a remote court reporting pilot program to be deployed in 11 superior courts across the state.

Without the official record of what transpired at a court proceeding, litigants may be unable to draft orders effectively and will generally not be able to appeal decisions. For example, when issuing a judgment in a contested family law matter, the judge often requires one of the parties to prepare a written judgment, memorializing the orders of the court. Without a transcript, preparation of a judgment, and therefore enforcement of the orders made by the judge, may be all but impossible. Similarly, if a litigant seeks to modify a judgment based on a change of circumstances, it is often necessary to understand, and communicate to the court, the circumstances the court initially took into account in making a custody or support order, for example. Absent a transcript, this too may be very difficult.

In 2018, the California Supreme Court reaffirmed the value of a court reporter in the courtroom holding, "the absence of a court reporter at trial court proceedings and the resulting lack of a verbatim record of such proceedings will frequently be fatal to a litigant's ability to have his or her claims of trial court error resolved on the merits by an appellate court. This is so because it is a fundamental principle of appellate procedure that a trial court judgment is ordinarily presumed to be correct and the burden is on an appellant to demonstrate, on the basis of the record presented to the appellate court, that the trial court committed an error that justifies reversal of the judgment." (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608-609.) The court in the Jameson case held that court reporters provide such a vital service that they must be provided by the courts in cases in which a civil litigant is afforded a fee waiver.

Despite the importance of court reporters, California courts are rarely able to provide court reporters in civil matters. To this end, starting in 2021, the Legislature allocated $30 million per year to the Judicial Council to increase the number of court reporters available in family and civil law cases. (SB 170 (Skinner), Chapter 240, Statutes of 2021.) Notwithstanding the Legislature's infusion of funding, and although stakeholders dispute the underlying causes, the Judicial Council has been unable to hire enough court reporters to ensure the availability of accurate records for all litigants.

This bill acknowledges that, despite the resources provided by the Legislature, the Judicial Council has failed to adequately recruit new court reporters. Recognizing that quality of life issues may be deterring the hiring of court reporters, this bill seek to study whether or not remote court reporting may be feasible in California courts. To that end, this bill authorizes 11 superior courts to commence a one-year pilot project to test the feasibility of remote court reporting. The bill establishes the minimum technological standards necessary for remote court reporting to ensure that any record produced by a court reporter working remotely is accurate and functional for use in potential appeals. Given the often contentious relationship between California's courts and court reporters, this bill clarifies that court reporters working remotely cannot be treated differently than their peers who physically are working in courtrooms. Finally, this bill requires a report to the Legislature at the conclusion of the pilot program to enable the Legislature to evaluate the program's success and determine if remote court reporting is a viable option for assisting in the recruitment and retention of qualified court reporters.

Recognizing the need for all litigants to have access to accurate records of the court proceedings, in recent years, the Legislature has grappled with how to best deploy technology in courtrooms. As discussed above, a general framework for remote appearances and witness testimony has been adopted in statute. The ongoing use of remote appearances has allowed the court to address the backlog in civil proceedings caused by the pandemic, and it appears that the use of remote technology for court appearances and testimony will continue.

However, utilizing technology to develop court transcripts remains far less settled. Due to the potential for critical errors or failure in the technology used to develop transcripts, the Legislature must proceed with extreme caution in authorizing the use of technology for developing court records. Indeed, the Legislature has indicated a strong preference for a person to continue to play a role in the development of a record, as utilizing recording technology without some form of human oversight may result in large segments of proceedings being omitted from the record as a result of an error by a recording system. Recognizing this preference for humans and technology working together to develop a record, in 2022, the Legislature approved AB 156 (Committee on Budget) Chapter 569, Statutes of 2022, to authorize the licensure and deployment of voice writers in California courts. This technology utilized both human and computer interactions. Conversely, in 2023, a measure to authorize electronic recording of court proceedings stalled in the Legislature as it was acknowledged that the technology may not be accurate and may be prone to failures. Like the voice writer measure, this bill seeks to utilize new technologies while maintaining human oversight of the creation of court records.

This measure can be viewed as a follow-up to prior Legislative efforts to study the effectiveness of remote court reporting. In 2019, the Legislature approved AB 253 (M. Stone) Chapter 419, Statutes of 2019 which authorized a remote court reporting pilot project for Santa Clara County Superior Court. Unfortunately, just as that pilot project was commencing, the COVID-19 pandemic closed courthouses across the state and forced courts to quickly move all proceedings to remote operations. As a result of the necessary, but hastily conducted, move to remote proceedings, the technology needed to effectively study remote court reporting was not available during the Santa Clara County pilot project. While the Santa Clara County pilot participants righteously endeavored to study and develop best practices regarding remote court reporting, the realities of the pandemic produced a report that provided few long-term recommendations for remote court reporting in this state. This measure seeks to improve upon the AB 253 study by including more counties, providing more flexibility, and (one hopes) conducting the study during normal court operations.

According to the Author

AB 3013 establishes a one-year pilot project in 11 counties throughout California to develop the use of remote court reporters by trial courts. Despite being a highly skilled and well-paid profession, there is a growing shortage of court reporters. Existing statutes authorize court proceedings to be conducted remotely; however, court reporters must be physically present in a courtroom. In contrast, private court reporters have the flexibility to participate remotely. By establishing a remote reporting pilot project, AB 3013 would allow for the development of successful standards for producing accurate verbatim transcripts remotely. These standards could advise statewide implementation, which would provide courts with more staffing flexibility and make court employment more attractive.

Arguments in Support

This measure is sponsored by the Service Employees International Union, who represents the bulk of court-employed court reporters in California, and is supported by several other labor organizations. In support of this measure the Service Employees International Union writes:

Court reporting is a female-dominated career, with over 90% of reporters identifying as women. This highly skilled and well-paid profession affords women economic stability while providing an essential service to Californians.

California has the highest standards for this profession in the country, and the penalties for failure to certify a 100% accurate transcript could result in the loss of a license or even a misdemeanor. Our state rightly recognizes the value of a verbatim record and its necessity in ensuring a fair judicial system. It's a long-held and undisputed fact that live court reporters are the gold standard in capturing and creating verbatim transcripts in the United States.

Prior to the pandemic, all court proceedings were conducted in person. In an effort to make official court reporter employment more attractive and flexible, AB 253 (Chapter 419, Statutes of 2019) established a one-year remote court reporting pilot program in Santa Clara Superior Court. However, the pandemic derailed the effort when courthouses shut down in late March 2020. Therefore, more testing is needed to ensure that a high-quality verbatim transcript can be produced by remote court reporting.

Although existing statutes authorize court proceedings to be conducted remotely, court reporters must be physically present in a courtroom. In contrast, private court reporters have the flexibility to participate remotely. Additionally, California's trial courts are facing recruitment and retention difficulties. While there are more than enough licensed court reporters in California to cover every judicial officer, reporters opt to work in the private freelance market rather than in court.

The private market is more lucrative and offers greater job flexibility than working for a court. A March 2024 analysis on the availability of court reporters conducted by the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) suggests the Legislature should consider remote reporting to "improve overall court efficiency and improve working conditions for some reporters. This could improve recruitment and retention." However, the LAO cautions that consideration should be given to different case types, suggesting that some cases may not be appropriate for remote court reporting.

By establishing a remote reporting pilot project, AB 3013 would build off recent and successful legislative endeavors that established the licensure of court reporters who use voice writing technology and the ongoing budget allocation of $30 million for courts to recruit and retain court reporters. AB 3013 would increase access to quality transcripts for all litigants, regardless of status, by working to increase the likelihood that more reporters will work in trial courts. Court reporters who work for a court are free to litigants, and their transcripts are required to be 100% accurate. This ensures that all people will have access to verbatim transcripts, not just those who are wealthy enough to hire a private court reporter. Verbatim transcripts are a core underpinning of a fair system of justice.

Arguments in Opposition

No opposition on file.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.

VOTES:

ASM JUDICIARY: 11-0-1

YES: Kalra, Dixon, Ting, Bryan, Connolly, Haney, Maienschein, McKinnor, Pacheco, Reyes, Sanchez

ABS, ABST OR NV: Waldron

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-0-0

YES: Wicks, Sanchez, Arambula, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Dixon, Mike Fong, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Jim Patterson, Pellerin, Ta, Villapudua

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-0-9

YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, Dixon, Flora, Mike Fong, Vince Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Jim Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Reyes, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas

ABS, ABST OR NV: Calderon, Cervantes, Megan Dahle, Essayli, Friedman, Holden, Mathis, Joe Patterson, Luz Rivas

SENATE FLOOR: 40-0-0

YES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk

UPDATED

VERSION: August 19, 2024

CONSULTANT: Nicholas Liedtke / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0004209

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 3013

Author: Maienschein (D)

Amended: 8/19/24 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 11-0, 6/25/24

AYES: Umberg, Wilk, Allen, Ashby, Caballero, Durazo, Laird, Niello, Roth, Stern, Wahab

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-0, 5/22/24 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Courts: remote court reporting

SOURCE: Services Employees International Union California

DIGEST:

This bill authorizes the superior courts of specified counties to conduct pilot projects to study the potential use of remote court reporting to make the verbatim record of certain court proceedings.

Senate Floor Amendments of 8/19/24 (a) expand the list of counties that may participate in the program, (b) clarify how the program may be implemented by the superior courts, including in what case types and proceedings, and (c) modify the reporting requirement for pilot project results to require the Judicial Council to compile the participating counties’ results and present them to the Legislature in a single report.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Provides that an official court reporter or official court reporter pro tempore^[1] of the superior court shall 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 the following cases:
   1. In a civil case, on the order of the court or at the request of a party.
   2. In a felony case, on the order of the court or at the request of the prosecution, the defendant, or the attorney for the defendant.
   3. In a misdemeanor or infraction case, on the order of the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 269(a).)
2. Requires the court to provide an official court reporter in felony, dependency, and juvenile justice proceedings. (Pen. Code, §§ 190.9, 869; Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 347, 677.)
3. Provides that a superior court may appoint as many competent phonographic reporters, to be known as official reporters of such court, and such official reporters pro tempore, as are deemed necessary for the performance of the duties and the exercise of the powers conferred by law upon the court and its members. (Gov. Code, § 69941.)
4. Provides that no person shall be appointed to the position of official court reporter of any court unless the person has first obtained a license to practice as a certified shorthand reporter from the Court Reporters Board of California (CRB). (Gov. Code, § 69942.)
5. Defines the practice of shorthand reporting, for purposes of becoming a certified shorthand reporter under 3), as the making, by means of written symbols or abbreviations in shorthand or machine shorthand writing, or by voice writing, of a verbatim record of any oral court proceeding, deposition, court ordered hearing or arbitration, or proceeding before any grand jury, referee, or court commissioner and the accurate transcription thereof. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 8017.)
6. Provides that, in a limited civil, misdemeanor, or infraction case, if an official court reporter is unavailable to report an action or proceeding in a court, the court may order the action or proceeding to be electronically recorded for purposes of creating the verbatim record, provided that the court has the approved equipment for doing so. (Gov. Code, § 69957(a).)
7. Defines “remote court reporting” as the use of a stenographic reporter who is not present in the courtroom to produce a verbatim record of court proceedings that are transmitted by audiovisual means to the reporter. (Gov. Code, § 69959(b).)
8. Provides that remote court reporting shall not be used by the courts to make the record of any court proceedings, and courts shall not expand any funds to purchase equipment or software to facilitate the use of remote court reporting. (Gov. Code, § 69959(a).)

This bill:

1. Defines “remote court reporting” as the use of a stenographic reporter who is not present in the courtroom to produce a verbatim record of court proceedings that are transmitted by audiovisual means to the reporter.
2. Provides that, notwithstanding existing law, the Superior Courts of the Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Los Angeles, Mendocino, Monterey, Orange, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Tulare, and Ventura are authorized pilot projects, beginning on July 1, 2025, to study the potential use of remote court reporting to make the verbatim record of certain court proceedings. A superior court that elects to conduct a pilot project must comply with the requirements of 3)-13).
3. Provides that, in a pilot project, remote court reporting shall be performed only by full-time official court reporters employed by the participating superior court who have at least two years of courtroom experience in a California superior court; court reporters who participate in the pilot projects shall be treated in the same manner as other official reporters employed by the court, including, but not limited to, compensation, benefits, classification, seniority, job description, and bargaining units.
4. Provides that, in a pilot project, either (1) official reporters shall be physically located in a court facility while performing the remote court reporting; or (2) the superior courts and exclusive representative of the official court reporters may meet and confer and reach an agreement by June 30, 2025, to include additional offsite locations to test remote reporting, provided that the agreement specifies the equipment needed for these locations and how the court will provide that equipment.
5. Provides limits on the number of court reporters that may participate in the pilot project as follows:
   1. As the default, no more than 20 percent of the total court reporters in the court may participate in the pilot project.
   2. Notwithstanding the default, in courts with fewer than 10 full-time court reporters, no more than 2 court reporters may participate.
   3. Notwithstanding the default, in a county with a population of 2,000,000 or more, no more than 10 percent of the total full-time court reporters may be in the pilot project.
6. Requires a superior court conducting a pilot project to equip its courtrooms with necessary equipment by no later than June 30, 2025.
7. Defines “necessary equipment” to include:
   1. Individual microphones for each participant, including the judicial officer, witnesses, jury box, counsel table, and lectern or podium or other place where participants may speak.
   2. Cameras with a frontal view of the judicial officer, witnesses, jury box, counsel tables, and lectern or podium or other place where participants may speak; provided that the camera in the jury box shall not be utilized, and must be removed or otherwise disabled, when jurors or potential jurors are present, as specified.
   3. Speakers that allow the court reporter to be heard clearly throughout the courtroom.
   4. Speakers and microphone for the court reporter.
   5. Camera for the court reporter.
   6. Two-way means of communication between the court reporter and the judicial officer, which give the court reporters the ability to mute and unmute their own audio to communicate with the judicial officer.
8. Authorizes a participating superior court to elect to use remote court reporting limited civil cases, law and motion for unlimited civil cases, family law cases, child support cases, probate cases, juvenile dependency cases, and felony and misdemeanor proceedings except for preliminary hearings, trials, and death penalty cases.
9. Permits transcripts created through remote court reporting as part of a pilot project to be used whenever a transcript of court proceedings is required, and provides that the fees of the official reporter and costs of transcript preparation for remote court reporting in a pilot project shall be the same as when an official reporter is present in the courtroom.
10. Provides that court reporters participating in the pilot project shall not be held responsible for failures in technology or equipment, and that if technology or audibility issues inhibit the court reporter’s ability to accurately capture and certify a verbatim record, the court shall temporarily suspend the proceeding until the issues are resolved; a trial court shall not retaliate or threaten to retaliate against a court reporter who notifies the judicial officer that technology or audibility issues are impeding the creation and certification of the verbatim record.
11. Requires each participating superior court to submit data and information to the Judicial Council, as specified, which Judicial Council shall compile into a report for the Legislature, to be presented to the Legislature within six months of the conclusion of the pilot project.
12. Provides that all pilot projects authorized pursuant to 2) shall terminate no later than July 1, 2026; however, a participating superior court must terminate its pilot project earlier if the court determines that the use of remote court reporting is prejudicing the rights of litigants or the interests of justice.
13. Provides that 1)-12) will sunset on June 1, 2027.

Comments

In 2019, the Legislature enacted AB 253 (M. Stone, Chapter 419, Statutes of 2019), which (1) generally prohibited the use of remote court reporting in California’s courts, and (2) authorized the Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara to conduct a remote court reporting pilot. The bill took effect at the beginning of 2020, and the Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara announced at the end of January that the pilot project had started.^[2] Weeks later, however, the COVID-19 pandemic upended nearly every aspect of public life, and courts rushed to move all court operations online in order to keep the justice system moving. The Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara’s report on the bill acknowledged that the shift to all-remote proceedings prevented the full implementation of the pilot, but believed the limited implementation still provided valuable lessons for future remote court reporting efforts.^[3]

This bill authorizes a second remote court reporter pilot project, but on a larger scale than AB 253. Instead of limiting the pilot project to a single county, this bill authorizes 13 counties—Alameda, Contra Costa, Los Angeles, Mendocino, Monterey, Orange, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Tulare, and Ventura—to implement remote court reporter pilot projects. Each county that elects to establish a pilot will be permitted to use remote court reporting in up to ten percent of the courtrooms in each county. The pilot programs may commence beginning July 1, 2025, and must be completed by July 1, 2026.

This bill provides a number of limitations intended to ensure that the pilot projects are conducted with the utmost care for the integrity of official records created through remote reporting. These include minimum experience requirements for the participating court reporters, minimum technological requirements for participating courtrooms, and the requirement that reporting must be conducted within the courthouse unless other locations are specifically agreed to by the court and the court reporters’ exclusive representative. Many of the technological requirements in this bill are based on the recommendations made in connection with the AB 253 pilot. Additionally, remote reporting under the pilot is restricted to specified case types and proceedings: limited civil cases, law and motion in unlimited civil cases, family law cases, child support cases, probate cases, juvenile dependency cases, and felony and misdemeanor pleadings except for preliminary hearings, trials, and death penalty cases. This bill also provides protections for the court reporters who participate in the pilot.

This bill requires each participating superior court to collect information about the project and report that to the Judicial Council; the Judicial Council must compile that information and present it to the Legislature in a report. The report must be presented to the Legislature within six months of the conclusion of the project.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/16/24)

Services Employees International Union California (source)

California Labor Federation

Orange County Employees Association

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/16/24)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to Services Employees International Union California:

Prior to the pandemic, all court proceedings were conducted in person. In an effort to make official court reporter employment more attractive and flexible, AB 253 (M. Stone, Chapter 419, Statutes of 2019) established a one-year remote court reporting pilot program in Santa Clara Superior Court. However, the pandemic derailed the effort when courthouses shut down in late March 2020. Therefore, more testing is needed to ensure that a high-quality verbatim transcript can be produced by remote court reporting.

Current law expressly prohibits trial courts from using remote court reporting. Although existing statutes authorize court proceedings to be conducted remotely, court reporters must be physically present in a courtroom. In contrast, private court reporters have the flexibility to participate remotely. Additionally, California’s trial courts are facing recruitment and retention difficulties. While there are more than enough licensed court reporters in California to cover every judicial officer, reporters opt to work in the private freelance market rather than in court.

The private market is more lucrative and offers greater job flexibility than working for a court. A March 2024 analysis on the availability of court reporters conducted by the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) suggests the Legislature should consider remote reporting to “improve overall court efficiency and improve working conditions for some reporters. This could improve recruitment and retention.” However, the LAO cautions that consideration should be given to different case types, suggesting that some cases may not be appropriate for remote court reporting…

AB 3013 would increase access to quality transcripts for all litigants, regardless of status, by working to increase the likelihood that more reporters will work in trial courts. Court reporters who work for a court are free to litigants, and their transcripts are required to be 100% accurate. This ensures that all people will have access to verbatim transcripts, not just those who are wealthy enough to hire a private court reporter. Verbatim transcripts are a core underpinning of a fair system of justice.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-0, 5/22/24

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, Dixon, Flora, Mike Fong, Vince Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Jim Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Reyes, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Calderon, Cervantes, Megan Dahle, Essayli, Friedman, Holden, Mathis, Joe Patterson, Luz Rivas

Prepared by: Allison Whitt Meredith / JUD. / (916) 651-4113

8/20/24 17:25:32

**** END ****

1. Going forward, this analysis uses “official court reporter” to include “official court reporter pro tempore.” ↑

2. Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, Press Release, AB 253: Pilot Project for Remote Court Reporting (Jan. 30, 2020), available at https://www.scscourt.org/general_info/news_media/newspdfs/PR%20AB%20253%20Remote%20Court%20Reporting%202020.pdf (link current as of August 16, 2024). ↑

3. Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara, Assembly Bill 253: Remote Court Reporting Evaluation (Aug. 17, 2021), p. 2. ↑

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 3013

Author: Maienschein (D)

Amended: 4/10/24 in Assembly

Vote: 21

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 11-0, 6/25/24

AYES: Umberg, Wilk, Allen, Ashby, Caballero, Durazo, Laird, Niello, Roth, Stern, Wahab

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-0, 5/22/24 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Courts: remote court reporting

SOURCE: Services Employees International Union California

DIGEST:

This bill authorizes the superior courts of specified counties to conduct pilot projects to study the potential use of remote court reporting to make the verbatim record of certain court proceedings.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Provides that an official court reporter or official court reporter pro tempore^[1] of the superior court shall 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 the following cases:
   1. In a civil case, on the order of the court or at the request of a party.
   2. In a felony case, on the order of the court or at the request of the prosecution, the defendant, or the attorney for the defendant.
   3. In a misdemeanor or infraction case, on the order of the court. (Code of Civic Procedure, § 269(a).)
2. Requires the court to provide an official court reporter in felony, dependency, and juvenile justice proceedings. (Penal Code, §§ 190.9, 869; Welfare & Institutions Code, §§ 347, 677.)
3. Provides that a superior court may appoint as many competent phonographic reporters, to be known as official reporters of such court, and such official reporters pro tempore, as are deemed necessary for the performance of the duties and the exercise of the powers conferred by law upon the court and its members. (Government (Gov.) Code, § 69941.)
4. Provides that no person shall be appointed to the position of official court reporter of any court unless the person has first obtained a license to practice as a certified shorthand reporter from the Court Reporters Board of California. (Gov. Code, § 69942.)
5. Defines the practice of shorthand reporting, for purposes of becoming a certified shorthand reporter under 3), as the making, by means of written symbols or abbreviations in shorthand or machine shorthand writing, or by voice writing, of a verbatim record of any oral court proceeding, deposition, court ordered hearing or arbitration, or proceeding before any grand jury, referee, or court commissioner and the accurate transcription thereof. (Business & Professions Code, § 8017.)
6. Provides that, in a limited civil, misdemeanor, or infraction case, if an official court reporter is unavailable to report an action or proceeding in a court, the court may order the action or proceeding to be electronically recorded for purposes of creating the verbatim record, provided that the court has the approved equipment for doing so. (Gov. Code, § 69957(a).)
7. Defines “remote court reporting” as the use of a stenographic reporter who is not present in the courtroom to produce a verbatim record of court proceedings that are transmitted by audiovisual means to the reporter. (Gov. Code, § 69959(b).)
8. Provides that remote court reporting shall not be used by the courts to make the record of any court proceedings, and courts shall not expand any funds to purchase equipment or software to facilitate the use of remote court reporting. (Gov. Code, § 69959(a).)

This bill:

1. Defines “remote court reporting” as the use of a stenographic reporter who is not present in the courtroom to produce a verbatim record of court proceedings that are transmitted by audiovisual means to the reporter.
2. Provides that, notwithstanding existing law, the Superior Courts of the Counties of Alameda, Los Angeles, Mendocino, Monterey, Orange, San Diego, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Tulare, and Ventura are authorized pilot projects, beginning on July 1, 2025, to study the potential use of remote court reporting to make the verbatim record of certain court proceedings. A superior court that elects to conduct a pilot project must comply with the requirements of 3) through 8) above.
3. Provides that, in a pilot project, remote court reporting shall be performed only by full-time official court reporters employed by the participating superior court who have at least two years of courtroom experience in a California superior court; court reporters who participate in the pilot projects shall be treated in the same manner as other official reporters employed by the court, including, but not limited to, compensation, benefits, classification, seniority, job description, and bargaining units.
4. Provides that, in a pilot project, official reporters shall be physically located in court facilities while performing the remote court reporting; however, after six months of meaningful court reporting testing, the exclusive representatives of the official reporters of the participating superior court may, by mutual agreement reached no later than January 1, 2026, agree to include additional offsite locations to test remote court reporting and agree on the equipment needed for these locations and how the participating court will provide that equipment.
5. Provides that, in a pilot project, no more than ten percent of the total courtrooms in the participating court may be equipped to participate in the pilot project.
6. Requires a superior court conducting a pilot project to equip its courtrooms with necessary equipment by no later than June 30, 2025.
7. Defines “equipped,” for purposes of 5) and 6), to include:
   1. Individual microphones for each participant, including the judicial officer, witnesses, jury box, counsel table, and lectern or podium or other place where participants may speak.
   2. Permanently or semi-permanently affixed cameras with a frontal view of the judicial officer, witnesses, jury box, counsel tables, and lectern or podium or other place where participants may speak.
   3. Studio-quality speakers that allow the court reporter to be heard clearly throughout the courtroom.
   4. Wired speakers and microphone for the court reporter.
   5. High-quality camera for the court reporter.
   6. Two-way means of communication between the court reporter and the judicial officer.
8. Provides that, in a pilot project, remote court reporting may be used only to report proceedings in limited civil cases, civil law and motion cases, family law cases, child support cases, probate cases, and felony and misdemeanor arraignments and pleas.
9. Permits transcripts created through remote court reporting as part of a pilot project to be used whenever a transcript of court proceedings is required.
10. Provides that the fees of the official reporter and costs of transcript preparation for remote court reporting in a pilot project shall be the same as when an official reporter is present in the courtroom.
11. Requires the presiding judge of a participating superior court to appoint a committee to prepare a report to the Legislature on the results of the pilot project.
    1. The committee shall include at least two judicial officials who participated in the pilot project, at least two official reporters chosen by the exclusive bargaining representative of the official reporters of the participating superior court, and at least two attorneys who regularly practice in the participating superior court.
    2. The presiding judge shall also invite the chief public defender or their designee, and the district attorney or their designee, who may, at their discretion, participate on the committee.
    3. The committee’s report shall be presented to the Legislature, as specified, within six months of the conclusion of the pilot project.
12. Provides that all pilot projects authorized pursuant to 2) shall terminate no later than July 1, 2026; however, a participating superior court must terminate its pilot project earlier if the court determines that the use of remote court reporting is prejudicing the rights of litigants or the interests of justice.
13. Provides that 1) through 12) above will sunset on June 1, 2027.

Comments

In 2019, the Legislature enacted AB 253 (M. Stone, Chapter 419, Statutes of 2019), which (1) generally prohibited the use of remote court reporting in California’s courts, and (2) authorized the Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara to conduct a remote court reporting pilot. The bill took effect at the beginning of 2020, and the Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara announced at the end of January that the pilot project had started.^[2] Weeks later, however, the COVID-19 pandemic upended nearly every aspect of public life, and courts rushed to move all court operations online in order to keep the justice system moving. The Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara’s report on the bill acknowledged that the shift to all-remote proceedings prevented the full implementation of the pilot, but believed the limited implementation still provided valuable lessons for future remote court reporting efforts.^[3]

This bill authorizes a second remote court reporter pilot project, but on a larger scale than AB 253. Instead of limiting the pilot project to a single county, this bill authorizes 11 counties—Alameda, Los Angeles, Mendocino, Monterey, Orange, San Diego, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Tulare, and Ventura—to implement remote court reporter pilot projects. Each county that elects to establish a pilot will be permitted to use remote court reporting in up to ten percent of the courtrooms in each county. The pilot programs may commence beginning July 1, 2025, and must be completed by July 1, 2026.

This bill provides a number of limitations intended to ensure that the pilot projects are conducted with the utmost care for the integrity of official records created through remote reporting. These include minimum experience requirements for the participating court reporters, minimum technological requirements for participating courtrooms, and the requirement that, for the first six months of the pilot, remote court reporters must be physically present in a court facility while reporting remotely; if, after six months, the results indicate that offsite reporting is worth testing, the participating courts and representatives of the court reporters can negotiate that next step. Many of the technological requirements in this bill are based on the recommendations made in connection with the AB 253 pilot. Additionally, remote reporting under the pilot is restricted to specified case types: limited civil cases, civil law and motion cases, family law cases, child support cases, probate cases, and felony and misdemeanor arraignments and pleas. This bill also provides protections for the court reporters who participate in the pilot.

This bill requires the presiding judge of each court that elects to commence a pilot project to appoint a committee to prepare a report for the Legislature regarding the results of the pilot project. Each committee must include participating judicial officers and court reporters, and may include representatives from the county’s public defender and district attorney’s offices. The report must be presented to the Legislature within six months of the conclusion of the project.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/12/24)

Services Employees International Union California (source)

California Labor Federation

Orange County Employees Association

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/12/24)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to Services Employees International Union California:

Prior to the pandemic, all court proceedings were conducted in person. In an effort to make official court reporter employment more attractive and flexible, AB 253 (M. Stone, Chapter 419, Statutes of 2019) established a one-year remote court reporting pilot program in Santa Clara Superior Court. However, the pandemic derailed the effort when courthouses shut down in late March 2020. Therefore, more testing is needed to ensure that a high-quality verbatim transcript can be produced by remote court reporting.

Current law expressly prohibits trial courts from using remote court reporting. Although existing statutes authorize court proceedings to be conducted remotely, court reporters must be physically present in a courtroom. In contrast, private court reporters have the flexibility to participate remotely. Additionally, California’s trial courts are facing recruitment and retention difficulties. While there are more than enough licensed court reporters in California to cover every judicial officer, reporters opt to work in the private freelance market rather than in court.

The private market is more lucrative and offers greater job flexibility than working for a court. A March 2024 analysis on the availability of court reporters conducted by the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) suggests the Legislature should consider remote reporting to “improve overall court efficiency and improve working conditions for some reporters. This could improve recruitment and retention.” However, the LAO cautions that consideration should be given to different case types, suggesting that some cases may not be appropriate for remote court reporting…

AB 3013 would increase access to quality transcripts for all litigants, regardless of status, by working to increase the likelihood that more reporters will work in trial courts. Court reporters who work for a court are free to litigants, and their transcripts are required to be 100% accurate. This ensures that all people will have access to verbatim transcripts, not just those who are wealthy enough to hire a private court reporter. Verbatim transcripts are a core underpinning of a fair system of justice.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-0, 5/22/24

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, Dixon, Flora, Mike Fong, Vince Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Jim Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Reyes, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Calderon, Cervantes, Megan Dahle, Essayli, Friedman, Holden, Mathis, Joe Patterson, Luz Rivas

Prepared by: Allison Whitt Meredith / JUD. / (916) 651-4113

8/16/24 12:47:40

**** END ****

1. Going forward, this analysis uses “official court reporter” to include “official court reporter pro tempore.” ↑

2. Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, Press Release, AB 253: Pilot Project for Remote Court Reporting (Jan. 30, 2020), available at https://www.scscourt.org/general_info/news_media/newspdfs/PR%20AB%20253%20Remote%20Court%20Reporting%202020.pdf (link current as of August 9, 2024). ↑

3. Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara, Assembly Bill 253: Remote Court Reporting Evaluation (Aug. 17, 2021), p. 2. ↑

 CONSENT  

Bill No: AB 3013

Author: Maienschein (D)

Amended: 4/10/24 in Assembly

Vote: 21

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 11-0, 6/25/24

AYES: Umberg, Wilk, Allen, Ashby, Caballero, Durazo, Laird, Niello, Roth, Stern, Wahab

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-0, 5/22/24 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Courts: remote court reporting

SOURCE: Services Employees International Union California

DIGEST:

This bill authorizes the superior courts of specified counties to conduct pilot projects to study the potential use of remote court reporting to make the verbatim record of certain court proceedings.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Provides that an official court reporter or official court reporter pro tempore^[1] of the superior court shall 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 the following cases:
   1. In a civil case, on the order of the court or at the request of a party.
   2. In a felony case, on the order of the court or at the request of the prosecution, the defendant, or the attorney for the defendant.
   3. In a misdemeanor or infraction case, on the order of the court. (Code of Civic Procedure, § 269(a).)
2. Requires the court to provide an official court reporter in felony, dependency, and juvenile justice proceedings. (Penal Code, §§ 190.9, 869; Welfare & Institutions Code, §§ 347, 677.)
3. Provides that a superior court may appoint as many competent phonographic reporters, to be known as official reporters of such court, and such official reporters pro tempore, as are deemed necessary for the performance of the duties and the exercise of the powers conferred by law upon the court and its members. (Government (Gov.) Code, § 69941.)
4. Provides that no person shall be appointed to the position of official court reporter of any court unless the person has first obtained a license to practice as a certified shorthand reporter from the Court Reporters Board of California. (Gov. Code, § 69942.)
5. Defines the practice of shorthand reporting, for purposes of becoming a certified shorthand reporter under 3), as the making, by means of written symbols or abbreviations in shorthand or machine shorthand writing, or by voice writing, of a verbatim record of any oral court proceeding, deposition, court ordered hearing or arbitration, or proceeding before any grand jury, referee, or court commissioner and the accurate transcription thereof. (Business & Professions Code, § 8017.)
6. Provides that, in a limited civil, misdemeanor, or infraction case, if an official court reporter is unavailable to report an action or proceeding in a court, the court may order the action or proceeding to be electronically recorded for purposes of creating the verbatim record, provided that the court has the approved equipment for doing so. (Gov. Code, § 69957(a).)
7. Defines “remote court reporting” as the use of a stenographic reporter who is not present in the courtroom to produce a verbatim record of court proceedings that are transmitted by audiovisual means to the reporter. (Gov. Code, § 69959(b).)
8. Provides that remote court reporting shall not be used by the courts to make the record of any court proceedings, and courts shall not expand any funds to purchase equipment or software to facilitate the use of remote court reporting. (Gov. Code, § 69959(a).)

This bill:

1. Defines “remote court reporting” as the use of a stenographic reporter who is not present in the courtroom to produce a verbatim record of court proceedings that are transmitted by audiovisual means to the reporter.
2. Provides that, notwithstanding existing law, the Superior Courts of the Counties of Alameda, Los Angeles, Mendocino, Monterey, Orange, San Diego, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Tulare, and Ventura are authorized pilot projects, beginning on July 1, 2025, to study the potential use of remote court reporting to make the verbatim record of certain court proceedings. A superior court that elects to conduct a pilot project must comply with the requirements of 3) through 8) above.
3. Provides that, in a pilot project, remote court reporting shall be performed only by full-time official court reporters employed by the participating superior court who have at least two years of courtroom experience in a California superior court; court reporters who participate in the pilot projects shall be treated in the same manner as other official reporters employed by the court, including, but not limited to, compensation, benefits, classification, seniority, job description, and bargaining units.
4. Provides that, in a pilot project, official reporters shall be physically located in court facilities while performing the remote court reporting; however, after six months of meaningful court reporting testing, the exclusive representatives of the official reporters of the participating superior court may, by mutual agreement reached no later than January 1, 2026, agree to include additional offsite locations to test remote court reporting and agree on the equipment needed for these locations and how the participating court will provide that equipment.
5. Provides that, in a pilot project, no more than ten percent of the total courtrooms in the participating court may be equipped to participate in the pilot project.
6. Requires a superior court conducting a pilot project to equip its courtrooms with necessary equipment by no later than June 30, 2025.
7. Defines “equipped,” for purposes of 5) and 6), to include:
   1. Individual microphones for each participant, including the judicial officer, witnesses, jury box, counsel table, and lectern or podium or other place where participants may speak.
   2. Permanently or semi-permanently affixed cameras with a frontal view of the judicial officer, witnesses, jury box, counsel tables, and lectern or podium or other place where participants may speak.
   3. Studio-quality speakers that allow the court reporter to be heard clearly throughout the courtroom.
   4. Wired speakers and microphone for the court reporter.
   5. High-quality camera for the court reporter.
   6. Two-way means of communication between the court reporter and the judicial officer.
8. Provides that, in a pilot project, remote court reporting may be used only to report proceedings in limited civil cases, civil law and motion cases, family law cases, child support cases, probate cases, and felony and misdemeanor arraignments and pleas.
9. Permits transcripts created through remote court reporting as part of a pilot project to be used whenever a transcript of court proceedings is required.
10. Provides that the fees of the official reporter and costs of transcript preparation for remote court reporting in a pilot project shall be the same as when an official reporter is present in the courtroom.
11. Requires the presiding judge of a participating superior court to appoint a committee to prepare a report to the Legislature on the results of the pilot project.
    1. The committee shall include at least two judicial officials who participated in the pilot project, at least two official reporters chosen by the exclusive bargaining representative of the official reporters of the participating superior court, and at least two attorneys who regularly practice in the participating superior court.
    2. The presiding judge shall also invite the chief public defender or their designee, and the district attorney or their designee, who may, at their discretion, participate on the committee.
    3. The committee’s report shall be presented to the Legislature, as specified, within six months of the conclusion of the pilot project.
12. Provides that all pilot projects authorized pursuant to 2) shall terminate no later than July 1, 2026; however, a participating superior court must terminate its pilot project earlier if the court determines that the use of remote court reporting is prejudicing the rights of litigants or the interests of justice.
13. Provides that 1) through 12) above will sunset on June 1, 2027.

Comments

In 2019, the Legislature enacted AB 253 (M. Stone, Chapter 419, Statutes of 2019), which (1) generally prohibited the use of remote court reporting in California’s courts, and (2) authorized the Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara to conduct a remote court reporting pilot. The bill took effect at the beginning of 2020, and the Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara announced at the end of January that the pilot project had started.^[2] Weeks later, however, the COVID-19 pandemic upended nearly every aspect of public life, and courts rushed to move all court operations online in order to keep the justice system moving. The Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara’s report on the bill acknowledged that the shift to all-remote proceedings prevented the full implementation of the pilot, but believed the limited implementation still provided valuable lessons for future remote court reporting efforts.^[3]

This bill authorizes a second remote court reporter pilot project, but on a larger scale than AB 253. Instead of limiting the pilot project to a single county, this bill authorizes 11 counties—Alameda, Los Angeles, Mendocino, Monterey, Orange, San Diego, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Tulare, and Ventura—to implement remote court reporter pilot projects. Each county that elects to establish a pilot will be permitted to use remote court reporting in up to ten percent of the courtrooms in each county. The pilot programs may commence beginning July 1, 2025, and must be completed by July 1, 2026.

This bill provides a number of limitations intended to ensure that the pilot projects are conducted with the utmost care for the integrity of official records created through remote reporting. These include minimum experience requirements for the participating court reporters, minimum technological requirements for participating courtrooms, and the requirement that, for the first six months of the pilot, remote court reporters must be physically present in a court facility while reporting remotely; if, after six months, the results indicate that offsite reporting is worth testing, the participating courts and representatives of the court reporters can negotiate that next step. Many of the technological requirements in this bill are based on the recommendations made in connection with the AB 253 pilot. Additionally, remote reporting under the pilot is restricted to specified case types: limited civil cases, civil law and motion cases, family law cases, child support cases, probate cases, and felony and misdemeanor arraignments and pleas. This bill also provides protections for the court reporters who participate in the pilot.

This bill requires the presiding judge of each court that elects to commence a pilot project to appoint a committee to prepare a report for the Legislature regarding the results of the pilot project. Each committee must include participating judicial officers and court reporters, and may include representatives from the county’s public defender and district attorney’s offices. The report must be presented to the Legislature within six months of the conclusion of the project.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/12/24)

Services Employees International Union California (source)

California Labor Federation

Orange County Employees Association

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/12/24)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to Services Employees International Union California:

Prior to the pandemic, all court proceedings were conducted in person. In an effort to make official court reporter employment more attractive and flexible, AB 253 (M. Stone, Chapter 419, Statutes of 2019) established a one-year remote court reporting pilot program in Santa Clara Superior Court. However, the pandemic derailed the effort when courthouses shut down in late March 2020. Therefore, more testing is needed to ensure that a high-quality verbatim transcript can be produced by remote court reporting.

Current law expressly prohibits trial courts from using remote court reporting. Although existing statutes authorize court proceedings to be conducted remotely, court reporters must be physically present in a courtroom. In contrast, private court reporters have the flexibility to participate remotely. Additionally, California’s trial courts are facing recruitment and retention difficulties. While there are more than enough licensed court reporters in California to cover every judicial officer, reporters opt to work in the private freelance market rather than in court.

The private market is more lucrative and offers greater job flexibility than working for a court. A March 2024 analysis on the availability of court reporters conducted by the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) suggests the Legislature should consider remote reporting to “improve overall court efficiency and improve working conditions for some reporters. This could improve recruitment and retention.” However, the LAO cautions that consideration should be given to different case types, suggesting that some cases may not be appropriate for remote court reporting…

AB 3013 would increase access to quality transcripts for all litigants, regardless of status, by working to increase the likelihood that more reporters will work in trial courts. Court reporters who work for a court are free to litigants, and their transcripts are required to be 100% accurate. This ensures that all people will have access to verbatim transcripts, not just those who are wealthy enough to hire a private court reporter. Verbatim transcripts are a core underpinning of a fair system of justice.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-0, 5/22/24

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, Dixon, Flora, Mike Fong, Vince Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Jim Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Reyes, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Calderon, Cervantes, Megan Dahle, Essayli, Friedman, Holden, Mathis, Joe Patterson, Luz Rivas

Prepared by: Allison Whitt Meredith / JUD. / (916) 651-4113

8/14/24 14:03:14

**** END ****

1. Going forward, this analysis uses “official court reporter” to include “official court reporter pro tempore.” ↑

2. Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, Press Release, AB 253: Pilot Project for Remote Court Reporting (Jan. 30, 2020), available at https://www.scscourt.org/general_info/news_media/newspdfs/PR%20AB%20253%20Remote%20Court%20Reporting%202020.pdf (link current as of August 9, 2024). ↑

3. Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara, Assembly Bill 253: Remote Court Reporting Evaluation (Aug. 17, 2021), p. 2. ↑

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Thomas Umberg, Chair

2023-2024 Regular Session

Bill No: AB 3013 (Author:Maienschein)

Version: April 10, 2024

Hearing Date: June 25, 2024

Fiscal: Yes

Urgency: No

Consultant: AWM

SUBJECT

Courts: remote court reporting

DIGEST

This bill authorizes specified counties to conduct pilot projects to study the potential use of remote court reporting to make the verbatim record of certain court proceedings.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Generally speaking, only a certified shorthand court reporter may take down the verbatim record of a court proceeding for the creation of the official transcript. A court reporter may be certified to take down the proceedings through typographic or shorthand means or through voicewriting. Current law also requires the official court reporter to be present in the courtroom while taking down the record of the proceedings.

In 2019, the Legislature enacted AB 253 (M. Stone, Ch. 419, Stats. 2019), which (1) generally prohibited the use of remote court reporting in California’s courts, and (2) authorized the Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara to conduct a remote court reporting pilot. Santa Clara began its pilot project in 2020; unfortunately, due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the courts’ rapid switch to fully remote proceedings, the pilot project did not produce useful data on whether, and how, to adopt remote court reporting on a wider basis.

This bill authorizes a second remote court reporter pilot project, but on a larger scale than AB 253. Instead of limiting the pilot project to a single county, this bill authorizes specified 11 counties to implement remote court reporter pilot projects. Each county that elects to establish a pilot will be permitted to use remote court reporting in up to 10 percent of the courtrooms in each county. The pilot programs may commence beginning July 1, 2025, and must be completed by July 1, 2026. The bill provides for a number of safeguards regarding the use of technology for, and the experiences of the court reporters participating in, remote court reporting. Courts that elect to conduct pilot projects are required to report to the Legislature on the results of the pilot, which will inform the Legislature’s further consideration of whether to permit remote court reporting more broadly.

This bill is sponsored by SEIU California and is supported by the California Labor Federation and the Orange County Employees Association. The Committee has not received timely opposition to this bill.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW

Existing law:

1. Provides that an official court reporter or official court reporter pro tempore^[1] of the superior court shall 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 the following cases:
   1. In a civil case, on the order of the court or at the request of a party.
   2. In a felony case, on the order of the court or at the request of the prosecution, the defendant, or the attorney for the defendant.
   3. In a misdemeanor or infraction case, on the order of the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 269(a).)
2. Requires the court to provide an official court reporter in felony, dependency, and juvenile justice proceedings. (Pen. Code, §§ 190.9, 869; Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 347, 677.)
3. Provides that a superior court may appoint as many competent phonographic reporters, to be known as official reporters of such court, and such official reporters pro tempore, as are deemed necessary for the performance of the duties and the exercise of the powers conferred by law upon the court and its members. (Gov. Code, § 69941.)
4. Provides that no person shall be appointed to the position of official court reporter of any court unless the person has first obtained a license to practice as a certified shorthand reporter from the Court Reporters Board of California (CRB). (Gov. Code, § 69942.)
5. Defines the practice of shorthand reporting, for purposes of becoming a certified shorthand reporter under 3), as the making, by means of written symbols or abbreviations in shorthand or machine shorthand writing, or by voice writing, of a verbatim record of any oral court proceeding, deposition, court ordered hearing or arbitration, or proceeding before any grand jury, referee, or court commissioner and the accurate transcription thereof. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 8017.)
6. Provides that, in a limited civil, misdemeanor, or infraction case, if an official court reporter is unavailable to report an action or proceeding in a court, the court may order the action or proceeding to be electronically recorded for purposes of creating the verbatim record, provided that the court has the approved equipment for doing so. (Gov. Code, § 69957(a).)
7. Defines “remote court reporting” as the use of a stenographic reporter who is not present in the courtroom to produce a verbatim record of court proceedings that are transmitted by audiovisual means to the reporter. (Gov. Code, § 69959(b).)
8. Provides that remote court reporting shall not be used by the courts to make the record of any court proceedings, and courts shall not expand any funds to purchase equipment or software to facilitate the use of remote court reporting. (Gov. Code, § 69959(a).)

This bill:

1. Defines “remote court reporting” as the use of a stenographic reporter who is not present in the courtroom to produce a verbatim record of court proceedings that are transmitted by audiovisual means to the reporter.
2. Provides that, notwithstanding existing law, the Superior Courts of the Counties of Alameda, Los Angeles, Mendocino, Monterey, Orange, San Diego, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Tulare, and Ventura are authorized pilot projects, beginning on July 1, 2025, to study the potential use of remote court reporting to make the verbatim record of certain court proceedings. A superior court that elects to conduct a pilot project must comply with the requirements of 3)-8).
3. Provides that, in a pilot project, remote court reporting shall be performed only by full-time official court reporters employed by the participating superior court who have at least two years of courtroom experience in a California superior court; court reporters who participate in the pilot projects shall be treated in the same manner as other official reporters employed by the court, including, but not limited to, compensation, benefits, classification, seniority, job description, and bargaining units.
4. Provides that, in a pilot project, official reporters shall be physically located in court facilities while performing the remote court reporting; however, after six months of meaningful court reporting testing, the exclusive representatives of the official reporters of the participating superior court may, by mutual agreement reached no later than January 1, 2026, agree to include additional offsite locations to test remote court reporting and agree on the equipment needed for these locations and how the participating court will provide that equipment.
5. Provides that, in a pilot project, no more than 10 percent of the total courtrooms in the participating court may be equipped to participate in the pilot project.
6. Requires a superior court conducting a pilot project to equip its courtrooms with necessary equipment by no later than June 30, 2025.
7. Defines “equipped,” for purposes of 5) and 6), to include:
   1. Individual microphones for each participant, including the judicial officer, witnesses, jury box, counsel table, and lectern or podium or other place where participants may speak.
   2. Permanently or semi-permanently affixed cameras with a frontal view of the judicial officer, witnesses, jury box, counsel tables, and lectern or podium or other place where participants may speak.
   3. Studio-quality speakers that allow the court reporter to be heard clearly throughout the courtroom.
   4. Wired speakers and microphone for the court reporter.
   5. High-quality camera for the court reporter.
   6. Two-way means of communication between the court reporter and the judicial officer.
8. Provides that, in a pilot project, remote court reporting may be used only to report proceedings in limited civil cases, civil law and motion cases, family law cases, child support cases, probate cases, and felony and misdemeanor arraignments and pleas.
9. Permits transcripts created through remote court reporting as part of a pilot project to be used whenever a transcript of court proceedings is required.
10. Provides that the fees of the official reporter and costs of transcript preparation for remote court reporting in a pilot project shall be the same as when an official reporter is present in the courtroom.
11. Requires the presiding judge of a participating superior court to appoint a committee to prepare a report to the Legislature on the results of the pilot project.
    1. The committee shall include at least two judicial officials who participated in the pilot project, at least two official reporters chosen by the exclusive bargaining representative of the official reporters of the participating superior court, and at least two attorneys who regularly practice in the participating superior court.
    2. The presiding judge shall also invite the chief public defender or their designee, and the district attorney or their designee, who may, at their discretion, participate on the committee.
    3. The committee’s report shall be presented to the Legislature, as specified, within six months of the conclusion of the pilot project.
12. Provides that all pilot projects authorized pursuant to 2) shall terminate no later than July 1, 2026; however, a participating superior court must terminate its pilot project earlier if the court determines that the use of remote court reporting is prejudicing the rights of litigants or the interests of justice.
13. Provides that 1)-12) will sunset on June 1, 2027.

COMMENTS

1. Author’s comment

According to the author:

AB 3013 establishes a one-year pilot project in 11 counties throughout California to develop the use of remote court reporters by trial courts. Despite being a highly skilled and well-paid profession, there is a growing shortage of court reporters. Existing statutes authorize court proceedings to be conducted remotely; however, court reporters must be physically present in a courtroom. In contrast, private court reporters have the flexibility to participate remotely. By establishing a remote reporting pilot project, AB 3013 would allow for the development of successful standards for producing accurate verbatim transcripts remotely. These standards could advise statewide implementation, which would provide courts with more staffing flexibility and make court employment more attractive.

2. Background on the importance of court reporters

As a general rule, the official record of a court proceeding can be made only by a shorthand reporter licensed to practice by the CRB.^[2] To obtain a license, a person must pass a three-part exam and, generally, graduate from a state-approved school that takes four years to graduate.^[3] Felony, dependency, and juvenile justice proceedings are automatically reported;^[4] in civil trials, any party may request that a court reporter make a record of the proceedings.^[5] Additionally, if a party in a civil case has a fee waiver, the court must make a court reporter available for that litigant, even if the court does not otherwise provide court reporters for that case type.^[6]

There are exceptions to the rule requiring the record to be made by an official court reporter: in a limited civil, misdemeanor, or infraction case, the court may authorize the proceeding to be electronically recorded and transcribed after the fact by a person designated by the clerk of the court.^[7] Other jurisdictions currently use electronic recording in a wide array of cases, including the federal government.^[8]

As a matter of public policy, accurate transcripts of proceedings are vital to the administration of justice for a variety of reasons, including: establishing a record in order to subject errant rulings to the scrutiny of higher courts; enabling counsel to impeach a witness by showing that the witness made prior inconsistent statements while under oath; prosecuting a person for perjury; and ensuring that court orders accurately reflect the judge’s ruling on nuanced issues such as visitation rights or division of property. If the parties later disagree on a ruling, they may be forced to re-litigate the issue—a considerable burden on the parties and courts. Moreover, as explained by the California Supreme Court:

…the absence of a court reporter at trial court proceedings and the resulting lack of a verbatim record of such proceedings will frequently be fatal to a litigant's ability to have his or her claims of trial court error resolved on the merits by an appellate court. This is so because it is a fundamental principle of appellate procedure that a trial court judgment is ordinarily presumed to be correct and the burden is on an appellant to demonstrate, on the basis of the record presented to the appellate court, that the trial court committed an error that justifies reversal of the judgment.^[9]

3. Ongoing concerns about the number of official court reporters employed by the courts

Unfortunately, a variety of factors have left California’s courts with fewer official court reporters than are needed to provide parties in all civil cases with a court reporter. As explained in a Senate Judiciary Committee analysis from 2019:

California does not mandate the use of court reporters in certain civil actions, and budget cuts have resulted in increasingly shallow pools of official court reporters. This scarcity forces parties to choose between the undesirable alternatives of shouldering the costs of a private court reporter or altogether forgoing the use of a court reporter, thereby forfeiting the benefits and protections that an official transcript can provide.^[10]

In 2023, this Committee heard testimony from judges, court staff, and court users regarding the availability of court reporters and the barriers to increasing the court reporter work force at a joint informational hearing with the Senate Public Safety Committee.^[11] At a high level, there was a consensus that the courts have been unable to fill all of their official court reporter positions, but there were sharply diverging opinions on the cause.

4. California’s first attempt at a remote court reporting pilot and the subsequent debates over remote appearances

In 2019, the Legislature enacted AB 253 (M. Stone, Ch. 419, Stats. 2019), which (1) generally prohibited the use of remote court reporting in California’s courts, and (2) authorized the Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara to conduct a remote court reporting pilot. AB 253’s general prohibition, while also enacting a pilot on the same prohibited issue, reflected the conflicting impulses at play in the issue of remote reporting: if it’s done well, it could be a boon for court reporter availability and access to justice; but if it’s done poorly, the litigants whose transcripts are affected will be materially prejudiced.

AB 253 took effect at the beginning of 2020, and the Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara announced at the end of January that the pilot project had started.^[12] Weeks later, the COVID-19 pandemic upended nearly every aspect of public life, and courts rushed to move all court operations online in order to keep the justice system moving. The Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara’s report on AB 253 acknowledged that the shift to all-remote proceedings prevented the full implementation of the pilot, but believed the limited implementation still provided valuable lessons for future remote court reporting efforts.^[13] The report set forth the participating court reporters’ recommendations about the equipment and procedures that would be most likely to result in a verbatim record, as well as the court’s responses to those recommendations.^[14]

The shift to remote appearances in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic also shifted the Legislature’s attention to crafting policies for, and safeguards surrounding, those remote appearances. Throughout the discussions about remote appearances, stakeholders have raised concerns about the quality of the audiovisual technology provided and how poor technology can prejudice a party. Court reporters, in particular, have argued that more attention should be paid to the audiovisual technology used by the courts for remote appearances, noting that even minor audibility issues can affect the accuracy of a transcript of the proceedings, which can in turn materially prejudice a party. The current provisions authorizing parties to appear remotely require the court reporter to be physically present in the courtroom when a trial is conducted, in whole or in part, through the use of remote technology;^[15] these provisions were added at the request of court reporter stakeholders.

5. This bill authorizes multiple superior courts to implement remote court reporting pilots, subject to specified exceptions

This bill authorizes a second remote court reporter pilot project, but on a larger scale than AB 253. Instead of limiting the pilot project to a single county, this bill authorizes 11 counties—Alameda, Los Angeles, Mendocino, Monterey, Orange, San Diego, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Tulare, and Ventura—to implement remote court reporter pilot projects. Each county that elects to establish a pilot will be permitted to use remote court reporting in up to 10 percent of the courtrooms in each county. The pilot programs may commence beginning July 1, 2025, and must be completed by July 1, 2026.

The bill provides a number of limitations intended to ensure that the pilot projects are conducted with the utmost care for the integrity of official records created through remote reporting. These include minimum experience requirements for the participating court reporters, minimum technological requirements for participating courtrooms, and the requirement that, for the first six months of the pilot, remote court reporters must be physically present in a court facility while reporting remotely; if, after six months, the results indicate that offsite reporting is worth testing, the participating courts and representatives of the court reporters can negotiate that next step. Many of the technological requirements in this bill are based on the recommendations made in connection with the AB 253 pilot. Additionally, remote reporting is restricted to specified case types: limited civil cases, civil law and motion cases, family law cases, child support cases, probate cases, and felony and misdemeanor arraignments and pleas. The bill also provides protections for the court reporters who participate in the pilot.

The bill requires the presiding judge of each court that elects to commence a pilot project to appoint a committee to prepare a report for the Legislature regarding the results of the pilot project. Each committee must include participating judicial officers and court reporters, and may include representatives from the county’s public defender and district attorney’s offices. The report must be presented to the Legislature within six months of the conclusion of the project.

According to the author and sponsor, discussions with stakeholders, including the Judicial Council of California, regarding the scope and details of the pilot are ongoing. The Committee has not received any timely opposition to this bill.

6. Arguments in support

According to SEIU California, the bill’s sponsor:

Prior to the pandemic, all court proceedings were conducted in person. In an effort to make official court reporter employment more attractive and flexible, AB 253 (Chapter 419, Statutes 2019) established a one-year remote court reporting pilot program in Santa Clara Superior Court. However, the pandemic derailed the effort when courthouses

shut down in late March 2020. Therefore, more testing is needed to ensure that a high-quality verbatim transcript can be produced by remote court reporting.

Current law expressly prohibits trial courts from using remote court reporting. Although existing statutes authorize court proceedings to be conducted remotely, court reporters must be physically present in a courtroom. In contrast, private court reporters have the flexibility to participate remotely. Additionally, California’s trial courts are facing recruitment and retention difficulties. While there are more than enough licensed court reporters in California to cover every judicial officer, reporters opt to work in the private freelance market rather than in court.

The private market is more lucrative and offers greater job flexibility than working for a court. A March 2024 analysis on the availability of court reporters conducted by the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) suggests the Legislature should consider remote reporting to “improve overall court efficiency and improve working conditions for some reporters. This could improve recruitment and retention.” However, the LAO cautions that consideration should be given to different case types, suggesting that some cases may not be appropriate for remote court reporting…

AB 3013 would increase access to quality transcripts for all litigants, regardless of status, by working to increase the likelihood that more reporters will work in trial courts. Court reporters who work for a court are free to litigants, and their transcripts are required to be 100% accurate. This ensures that all people will have access to verbatim transcripts, not just those who are wealthy enough to hire a private court reporter. Verbatim transcripts are a core underpinning of a fair system of justice.

SUPPORT

SEIU California (sponsor)

California Labor Federation

Orange County Employees Association

OPPOSITION

None received

RELATED LEGISLATION

Pending Legislation: None known.

Prior Legislation:

SB 662 (Rubio, 2023) would have authorized a court to electronically record any civil case, for the purpose of creating the official record, provided that no official reporter is available, as specified; and would have allowed the Court Reporters Board of California (CRB) to issue provisional certificates to shorthand reporters who meet certain criteria. SB 662 died in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

SB 133 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Ch. 34, Stats. 2023) extended the sunset on the statute authorizing remote appearances in civil cases, until January 1, 2026; established a new statute authorizing remote appearances in juvenile justice, civil commitment, competency, and civil commitment proceedings; and required Judicial Council to establish various minimum technological standards for the use of remote technology in court proceedings.

SB 241 (Umberg, Ch. 214, Stats. 2021) titled the 2021 Court Efficiency Act, among other things, authorized specified remote appearances in specified civil court proceedings, subject to, among other things, the court reporter’s ability to accurately record the proceedings, and required that the court reporter in a trial conducted through remote means to be physically present in the courtroom. SB 241’s remote proceedings provisions were set to sunset on July 1, 2023.

AB 253 (Mark Stone, Ch. 419, Stats. 2019) explicitly prohibited the use of remote court reporting to make the record of any court proceeding, and established a pilot program in the Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara to conduct a one-year remote court reporting pilot.

PRIOR VOTES:

Assembly Floor (Ayes 71, Noes 0)

Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 15, Noes 0)

Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 11, Noes 0)

**************

1. Going forward, this analysis uses “official court reporter” to include “official court reporter pro tempore.” ↑

2. Code Civ. Proc., § 269; Gov. Code, §§ 69941, 69942, 69957. ↑

3. Commission on the Future of California’s Court System, Report to the Chief Justice (2017), Appendix 5.1C, p. 262. ↑

4. Pen. Code, §§ 190.9, 869; Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 347, 677.) ↑

5. Code Civ. Proc., § 369(a).) ↑

6. Jameson v. Desta, 5 Cal.5th 594, 623. ↑

7. Gov. Code, § 69975(a); Cal. Rules of Ct., r. 2.952(g).) ↑

8. E.g., 28 U.S.C. § 753(b). The federal courts’ Guide to Judiciary Policy sets forth extensive requirements for audio recordings, including for recording speeds, emergency backup measures, disaster recovery, and data security for digital recordings. (Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 6: Court Reporting, Ch. 3 & Appx. 3B & 3C.) ↑

9. Jameson, supra, 5 Cal.5th at pp. 608-609. ↑

10. Sen. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Assem. Bill. No 253 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) as amended June 21, 2019, p. 4. ↑

11. See Sen. Coms. on Judiciary and Public Safety, Agenda for The Judicial Branch: Protecting Access to Justice as the COVID-19 State of Emergency Expires (Mar. 7, 2023), available at https://sjud.senate.ca.gov/hearings/2023-24-informationaloversight-hearings. All links in this analysis are current as of June 20, 2024. ↑

12. Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, Press Release, AB 253: Pilot Project for Remote Court Reporting (Jan. 30, 2020), available at https://www.scscourt.org/general_info/news_media/newspdfs/PR%20AB%20253%20Remote%20Court%20Reporting%202020.pdf. ↑

13. Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara, Assembly Bill 253: Remote Court Reporting Evaluation (Aug. 17, 2021), p. 2. ↑

14. Id. at pp. 9-11. ↑

15. See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 367.75, 367.76. ↑

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 3013

Author:(Maienschein)

As Amended Ver:April 10, 2024

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Establishes a remote court reporting pilot program to be deployed in the superior courts of eleven counties.

Major Provisions

1. Authorizes the superior courts of the Counties of Alameda, Los Angeles, Mendocino, Monterey, Orange, San Diego, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Tulare, and Ventura to conduct pilot projects to study the potential use of remote court reporting to make the verbatim record of certain court proceedings.
2. Authorizes the pilot projects provided for in 1) to commence July 1, 2025.
3. Requires the pilot projects authorized by 1) to adhere to the following requirements:
   1. The remote court reporting can be performed only by full-time official reporters employed by the participating superior court who have at least two years of courtroom experience in a California superior court;
   2. Court reporters who participate in the remote court reporting pilot project are to be treated in the same manner as other official reporters employed by the court, including, but not limited to, compensation, benefits, classification, seniority, job description, and bargaining units;
   3. The official reporters must be physically located in court facilities while performing the remote court reporting until January 1, 2026 upon which the superior court and court reporters may reach a mutual agreement to establish additional offsite locations to test remote court reporting and an agreement regarding the equipment needed for these locations and how the participating court will provide that equipment;
   4. No more than 10% of the total courtrooms in the participating court may be equipped to participate in the pilot project;
   5. Remote court reporting is limited to proceedings in limited civil cases, civil law and motion cases, family law cases, child support cases, probate cases, and felony and misdemeanor arraignments and pleas; and
   6. Any transcripts created through remote court reporting as part of the pilot project may be used whenever a transcript of court proceedings is required.
4. Requires the presiding judge of a participating superior court to appoint a committee to prepare a report to the Legislature on the results of the pilot project.
5. Requires the committee established pursuant to 4) to include the following members:
   1. At least two judicial officers who participated in the pilot project;
   2. At least two official reporters chosen by the exclusive bargaining representative of the official reporters of the participating superior court; and
   3. At least two attorneys who regularly practice in the participating superior court.
6. Provides that the Chief Public Defender or their designee, and the District Attorney or their designee, who may, at their discretion, participate on the committee established pursuant to 4).
7. Requires the committee’s report to be presented to the Legislature, within six months of the conclusion of the pilot project, as specified.
8. Requires a courtroom being utilized for the pilot program to be properly equipped to operate the pilot project as follows:
   1. Individual microphones are provided for each participant, including the judicial officer, witnesses, jury box, counsel table, and lectern or podium or other place where participants may speak;
   2. The courtroom has permanently or semipermanently affixed cameras with a frontal view of the judicial officer, witnesses, jury box, counsel tables, and lectern or podium or other place where participants may speak;
   3. The courtroom has studio-quality speakers that allow the court reporter to be heard clearly throughout the courtroom;
   4. The remote location has wired speakers and a microphone for the court reporter;
   5. The remote location has a high-quality camera for the court reporter; and
   6. All locations have two-way means of communication between the court reporter and the judicial officer.

COMMENTS

In recent years, California law has moved to increase the use of remote technology in court proceedings. While the pandemic spurred significant advancements in online teleconferencing technology, the use of remote technology in court proceedings has proved to be highly contentious in the Legislature. As a result of compromises by all stakeholders, the use of remote technology now generally requires the consent of the various parties and the court reporter’s physical presence in the courtroom to protect the accuracy of the record. Recognizing that technology may exist to enable a court reporter to record the official transcript of proceedings from a remote location, this measure authorizes a remote court reporting pilot program to be deployed in 11 superior courts across the state.

Without the official record of what transpired at a court proceeding, litigants may be unable to draft orders effectively and will generally not be able to appeal decisions. For example, when issuing a judgment in a contested family law matter, the judge often requires one of the parties to prepare a written judgment, memorializing the orders of the court. Without a transcript, preparation of a judgment, and therefore enforcement of the orders made by the judge, may be all but impossible. Similarly, if a litigant seeks to modify a judgment based on a change of circumstances, it is often necessary to understand, and communicate to the court, the circumstances the court initially took into account in making a custody or support order, for example. Absent a transcript, this too may be very difficult.

In 2018, the California Supreme Court reaffirmed the value of a court reporter in the courtroom holding, "the absence of a court reporter at trial court proceedings and the resulting lack of a verbatim record of such proceedings will frequently be fatal to a litigant's ability to have his or her claims of trial court error resolved on the merits by an appellate court. This is so because it is a fundamental principle of appellate procedure that a trial court judgment is ordinarily presumed to be correct and the burden is on an appellant to demonstrate, on the basis of the record presented to the appellate court, that the trial court committed an error that justifies reversal of the judgment." (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608-609.) The court in the Jameson case held that court reporters provide such a vital service that they must be provided by the courts in cases in which a civil litigant is afforded a fee waiver.

Despite the importance of court reporters, California courts are rarely able to provide court reporters in civil matters. To this end, starting in 2021, the Legislature allocated $30 million per year to the Judicial Council to increase the number of court reporters available in family and civil law cases. (SB 170 (Skinner), Chapter 240, Statutes of 2021.) Notwithstanding the Legislature's infusion of funding, and although stakeholders dispute the underlying causes, the Judicial Council has been unable to hire enough court reporters to ensure the availability of accurate records for all litigants.

This bill acknowledges that, despite the resources provided by the Legislature, the Judicial Council has failed to adequately recruit new court reporters. Recognizing that quality of life issues may be deterring the hiring of court reporters, this bill seek to study whether or not remote court reporting may be feasible in California courts. To that end, this bill authorizes 11 superior courts to commence a one-year pilot project to test the feasibility of remote court reporting. The bill establishes the minimum technological standards necessary for remote court reporting to ensure that any record produced by a court reporter working remotely is accurate and functional for use in potential appeals. Given the often contentious relationship between California's courts and court reporters, this bill clarifies that court reporters working remotely cannot be treated differently than their peers who physically are working in courtrooms. Finally, this bill requires a report to the Legislature at the conclusion of the pilot program to enable the Legislature to evaluate the program’s success and determine if remote court reporting is a viable option for assisting in the recruitment and retention of qualified court reporters.

Recognizing the need for all litigants to have access to accurate records of the court proceedings, in recent years, the Legislature has grappled with how to best deploy technology in courtrooms. As discussed above, a general framework for remote appearances and witness testimony has been adopted in statute. The ongoing use of remote appearances has allowed the court to address the backlog in civil proceedings caused by the pandemic, and it appears that the use of remote technology for court appearances and testimony will continue.

However, utilizing technology to develop court transcripts remains far less settled. Due to the potential for critical errors or failure in the technology used to develop transcripts, the Legislature must proceed with extreme caution in authorizing the use of technology for developing court records. Indeed, the Legislature has indicated a strong preference for a person to continue to play a role in the development of a record, as utilizing recording technology without some form of human oversight may result in large segments of proceedings being omitted from the record as a result of an error by a recording system. Recognizing this preference for humans and technology working together to develop a record, in 2022, the Legislature approved AB 156 (Committee on Budget) Chapter 569, Statutes of 2022, to authorize the licensure and deployment of voice writers in California courts. This technology utilized both human and computer interactions. Conversely, in 2023, a measure to authorize electronic recording of court proceedings stalled in the Legislature as it was acknowledged that the technology may not be accurate and may be prone to failures. Like the voice writer measure, this bill seeks to utilize new technologies while maintaining human oversight of the creation of court records.

This measure can be viewed as a follow-up to prior Legislative efforts to study the effectiveness of remote court reporting. In 2019, the Legislature approved AB 253 (M. Stone) Chapter 419, Statutes of 2019 which authorized a remote court reporting pilot project for Santa Clara County Superior Court. Unfortunately, just as that pilot project was commencing, the COVID-19 pandemic closed courthouses across the state and forced courts to quickly move all proceedings to remote operations. As a result of the necessary, but hastily conducted, move to remote proceedings, the technology needed to effectively study remote court reporting was not available during the Santa Clara County pilot project. While the Santa Clara County pilot participants righteously endeavored to study and develop best practices regarding remote court reporting, the realities of the pandemic produced a report that provided few long-term recommendations for remote court reporting in this state. This measure seeks to improve upon the AB 253 study by including more counties, providing more flexibility, and (one hopes) conducting the study during normal court operations.

According to the Author

AB 3013 establishes a one-year pilot project in 11 counties throughout California to develop the use of remote court reporters by trial courts. Despite being a highly skilled and well-paid profession, there is a growing shortage of court reporters. Existing statutes authorize court proceedings to be conducted remotely; however, court reporters must be physically present in a courtroom. In contrast, private court reporters have the flexibility to participate remotely. By establishing a remote reporting pilot project, AB 3013 would allow for the development of successful standards for producing accurate verbatim transcripts remotely. These standards could advise statewide implementation, which would provide courts with more staffing flexibility and make court employment more attractive.

Arguments in Support

This measure is sponsored by the Service Employees International Union, who represents the bulk of court-employed court reporters in California, and is supported by several other labor organizations. In support of this measure the Service Employees International Union writes:

Court reporting is a female-dominated career, with over 90% of reporters identifying as women. This highly skilled and well-paid profession affords women economic stability while providing an essential service to Californians.

California has the highest standards for this profession in the country, and the penalties for failure to certify a 100% accurate transcript could result in the loss of a license or even a misdemeanor. Our state rightly recognizes the value of a verbatim record and its necessity in ensuring a fair judicial system. It’s a long-held and undisputed fact that live court reporters are the gold standard in capturing and creating verbatim transcripts in the United States.

Prior to the pandemic, all court proceedings were conducted in person. In an effort to make official court reporter employment more attractive and flexible, AB 253 (Chapter 419, Statutes of 2019) established a one-year remote court reporting pilot program in Santa Clara Superior Court. However, the pandemic derailed the effort when courthouses shut down in late March 2020. Therefore, more testing is needed to ensure that a high-quality verbatim transcript can be produced by remote court reporting.

Although existing statutes authorize court proceedings to be conducted remotely, court reporters must be physically present in a courtroom. In contrast, private court reporters have the flexibility to participate remotely. Additionally, California's trial courts are facing recruitment and retention difficulties. While there are more than enough licensed court reporters in California to cover every judicial officer, reporters opt to work in the private freelance market rather than in court.

The private market is more lucrative and offers greater job flexibility than working for a court. A March 2024 analysis on the availability of court reporters conducted by the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) suggests the Legislature should consider remote reporting to "improve overall court efficiency and improve working conditions for some reporters. This could improve recruitment and retention." However, the LAO cautions that consideration should be given to different case types, suggesting that some cases may not be appropriate for remote court reporting.

By establishing a remote reporting pilot project, AB 3013 would build off recent and successful legislative endeavors that established the licensure of court reporters who use voice writing technology and the ongoing budget allocation of $30 million for courts to recruit and retain court reporters. AB 3013 would increase access to quality transcripts for all litigants, regardless of status, by working to increase the likelihood that more reporters will work in trial courts. Court reporters who work for a court are free to litigants, and their transcripts are required to be 100% accurate. This ensures that all people will have access to verbatim transcripts, not just those who are wealthy enough to hire a private court reporter. Verbatim transcripts are a core underpinning of a fair system of justice.

Arguments in Opposition

No opposition on file.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations analysis, minor costs (Trial Court Trust Fund) to each court that chooses to participate in the pilot project. Judicial Council reports the pilot projects would not require additional equipment for courtrooms and the workload associated with setting up the pilot projects and fulfilling the reporting requirements should be minor and absorbable.

Regardless, consistent with Appropriations Committee rules and practice, this bill is eligible for placement on the suspense file because it has the primary purpose of creating a pilot project.

VOTES

ASM JUDICIARY: 11-0-1

YES: Kalra, Dixon, Ting, Bryan, Connolly, Haney, Maienschein, McKinnor, Pacheco, Reyes, Sanchez

ABS, ABST OR NV: Waldron

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-0-0

YES: Wicks, Sanchez, Arambula, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Dixon, Mike Fong, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Jim Patterson, Pellerin, Ta, Villapudua

UPDATED

VERSION: April 10, 2024

CONSULTANT: Nicholas Liedtke / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0002997

Date of Hearing: April 24, 2024

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 3013

Author:(Maienschein) – As Amended Ver:April 10, 2024

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill authorizes 11 county superior courts to conduct one-year pilot projects to study the use of remote court reporting.

Specifically, this bill:

1. Authorizes, beginning July 1, 2025, the superior courts of the counties of Alameda, Los Angeles, Mendocino, Monterey, Orange, San Diego, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Tulare, and Ventura to conduct pilot projects to study the potential use of remote court reporting to make the verbatim record of certain court proceedings.
2. Specifies requirements to which each pilot project must adhere, including requirements pertaining to which court reporters may participate in the pilot, where participating court reporters may be physically located, how many courtrooms may participate, and which types of proceedings may be recorded by remote court reporters.
3. Requires the presiding judge of a participating superior court to appoint a committee to prepare a report to the Legislature on the results of the pilot project.
4. Requires a courtroom being used for the pilot project to be properly equipped to allow remote court reporting, as specified.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Minor costs (Trial Court Trust Fund) to each court that chooses to participate in the pilot project. Judicial Council reports the pilot projects would not require additional equipment for courtrooms and the workload associated with setting up the pilot projects and fulfilling the reporting requirements should be minor and absorbable.

Regardless, consistent with Appropriations Committee rules and practice, this bill is eligible for placement on the suspense file because it has the primary purpose of creating a pilot project.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

Despite being a highly skilled and well-paid profession, there is a growing shortage of court reporters. Existing statutes authorize court proceedings to be conducted remotely; however, court reporters must be physically present in a courtroom. In contrast, private court reporters have the flexibility to participate remotely. By establishing a remote reporting pilot project, AB 3013 would allow for the development of successful standards for producing accurate verbatim transcripts remotely. These standards could advise statewide implementation, which would provide courts with more staffing flexibility and make court employment more attractive.

1. Background. Shorthand reporting is the practice of making a verbatim record of an oral court proceeding, deposition, court-ordered hearing, or arbitration. Court reporters typically use written symbols, abbreviations in shorthand, or machine shorthand writing to accurately transcribe every word spoken during a proceeding. The courts are required by law to make transcripts of felony, dependency, and juvenile justice proceedings. In civil proceedings, a party may request or the court may order a court reporter to make a transcript of a proceeding. Before the Great Recession, courts generally employed more court reporters and made them available for civil proceedings. However, after significant budget cuts, courts now employ fewer court reporters and no longer make them as freely available for use in civil proceedings. As a result, if a litigant wants a record of a civil court proceeding but the law does not require transcription and the court has not made a court reporter available, the litigant must hire a private contractor court reporter to document the proceeding. A litigant who cannot afford a contract court reporter is at a significant disadvantage; without an accurate transcript of court proceedings, they may not be able to effectively contest or appeal the court’s decisions.

Although California has authorized remote court proceedings in many contexts following the COVID-19 pandemic, existing law generally prohibits the use of remote court reporting. Court reporters are required to be physically present in a courtroom to produce a valid record of a court proceeding. Although this requirement was originally rooted in the need to protect the accuracy of the reporter’s record, advances in technology have made it much easier for a court reporter to produce an accurate transcript during a remote proceeding. As noted in the analysis of this bill by the Assembly Committee on Judiciary, however, remote court reporting has remained a contentious subject even as stakeholders reached agreements about other aspects of remote court proceedings.

This bill authorizes, but does not require, 11 county courts to conduct one-year pilot projects to study the use of remote court reporting. As described above, the bill includes strict requirements for remote court reporting conducted during the pilot projects, and requires reporting to the Legislature upon the conclusion of the projects.

1. Prior Legislation. AB 253 (Stone), Chapter 419, Statutes of 2019, authorized the Santa Clara County Superior Court to conduct a one-year pilot program to study the use of remote court reporting. As reported in the policy committee analysis of AB 3013, implementation of the AB 253 pilot program was significantly disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic and therefore did not produce helpful long-term recommendations.

Analysis Prepared by: Annika Carlson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 9, 2024

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Ash Kalra, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 3013

Author:(Maienschein) – As Amended Ver:March 18, 2024

As Proposed to be Amended

SUBJECT: Courts: remote court reporting

KEY ISSUE: should a remote court reporter pilot program be authorized in the superior courts of eleven counties?

SYNOPSIS

In 2019, recognizing the growing potential for technology to streamline court operations, the Legislature authorized a limited pilot program to study the use of remote court reporting in California courts. (AB 253 (M. Stone) Chap. 419, Stats. 2019.) However, when the COVID-19 pandemic upended nearly every aspect of public life a few months into the pilot program, the rush to move all court operations online resulted in a pilot program with inconsistent and incomplete results. In the intervening years, debates surrounding remote witnesses and other remotely occurring court proceedings and the location of a court reporter during those proceedings have monopolized the Legislature’s time in evaluating measures related to technology in the courthouse.

Now that remote testimony, for better or worse, appears to be a fairly settled issue, California’s official court reporters are once again seeking to better study having a court reporter work outside of a physical courtroom in an attempt to increase recruitment of official court reporters and to ensure better court reporter coverage of non-criminal legal matters. This bill proposes a more expansive pilot program than originally conceived in AB 253 by including 11 counties and seeking participation and feedback from a greater number of court users. The pilot program envisions a two-phased pilot whereby court reporters would initially report from a court facility but not the courtroom itself. The second phase of a pilot program would enable court reporters to work from non-court facilities if the court reporters and superior court can reach an agreement on how to conduct this phase of the study. Proposed amendments ensure that all stakeholders in the civil justice system, including those in quasi-criminal proceedings, are able to participate in the study if they so choose.

This measure is sponsored by the Service Employees International Union, on behalf of their official court reporter members, and is supported by a coalition of labor organizations. The proponents of this measure highlight the benefits that a properly developed remote court reporting program may have for official court reporter recruitment and retention. This measure has no known opposition.

SUMMARY: Establishes a remote court reporting pilot program to be deployed in the superior courts of eleven counties. Specifically, this bill:

1. Authorizes the superior courts of the Counties of Alameda, Los Angeles, Mendocino, Monterey, Orange, San Diego, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Tulare, and Ventura to conduct pilot projects to study the potential use of remote court reporting to make the verbatim record of certain court proceedings.
2. Authorizes the pilot projects provided for in 1) to commence July 1, 2025.
3. Requires the pilot projects authorized by 1) to adhere to the following requirements:
   1. The remote court reporting can be performed only by full-time official reporters employed by the participating superior court who have at least two years of courtroom experience in a California superior court;
   2. Court reporters who participate in the remote court reporting pilot project are to be treated in the same manner as other official reporters employed by the court, including, but not limited to, compensation, benefits, classification, seniority, job description, and bargaining units;
   3. The official reporters must be physically located in court facilities while performing the remote court reporting until January 1, 2026 upon which the superior court and court reporters may reach a mutual agreement to establish additional offsite locations to test remote court reporting and an agreement regarding the equipment needed for these locations and how the participating court will provide that equipment;
   4. No more than 10 percent of the total courtrooms in the participating court may be equipped to participate in the pilot project;
   5. Remote court reporting is limited to proceedings in limited civil cases, civil law and motion cases, family law cases, child support cases, probate cases, and felony and misdemeanor arraignments and pleas; and
   6. Any transcripts created through remote court reporting as part of the pilot project may be used whenever a transcript of court proceedings is required.
4. Requires the presiding judge of a participating superior court to appoint a committee to prepare a report to the Legislature on the results of the pilot project.
5. Requires the committee established pursuant to 4) to include the following members:
   1. At least two judicial officers who participated in the pilot project;
   2. At least two official reporters chosen by the exclusive bargaining representative of the official reporters of the participating superior court; and
   3. At least two attorneys who regularly practice in the participating superior court.
6. Provides that the Chief Public Defender or their designee, and the District Attorney or their designee, who may, at their discretion, participate on the committee established pursuant to 4).
7. Requires the committee’s report to be presented to the Legislature, within six months of the conclusion of the pilot project, as specified.
8. Requires a courtroom being utilized for the pilot program to be properly equipped to operate the pilot project as follows:
   1. Individual microphones are provided for each participant, including the judicial officer, witnesses, jury box, counsel table, and lectern or podium or other place where participants may speak;
   2. The courtroom has permanently or semipermanently affixed cameras with a frontal view of the judicial officer, witnesses, jury box, counsel tables, and lectern or podium or other place where participants may speak;
   3. The courtroom has studio-quality speakers that allow the court reporter to be heard clearly throughout the courtroom;
   4. The remote location has wired speakers and a microphone for the court reporter;
   5. The remote location has a high-quality camera for the court reporter; and
   6. All locations have two-way means of communication between the court reporter and the judicial officer.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Provides that, generally, a party that has provided notice may appear by telephone at the following conferences, hearings, and proceedings:
   1. A case management conference, provided the party has made a good faith effort to meet and confer before the conference as required by law and has timely served and filed a case management statement;
   2. A trial setting conference;
   3. A hearing on law and motion, except motions in limine;
   4. A hearing on a discovery motion;
   5. A conference to review the status of an arbitration or mediation;
   6. A hearing to review the dismissal of an action; and
   7. Any other hearing, conference, or proceeding if the court determines that a telephone appearance is appropriate. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 367.5 (b).)
2. Provides that, notwithstanding 1), a court may require a party to appear in person at a hearing, conference, or proceeding if the court determines on a hearing-by-hearing basis that a personal appearance would materially assist in the determination of the proceedings or in the effective management or resolution of the particular case. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 367.5 (c).)
3. Provides that, generally, in civil cases, when a party has provided notice to the court and all other parties that it intends to appear remotely, a party may appear remotely and the court may conduct conferences, hearings, and proceedings, in whole or in part, through the use of remote technology. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 367.75 (a).)
4. Provides that, notwithstanding 3), a court may require a party or witness to appear in person at a conference, hearing, or proceeding if any of the following conditions are present:
   1. The court with jurisdiction over the case does not have the technology necessary to conduct the conference, hearing, or proceeding remotely;
   2. The quality of the technology or audibility at a conference, hearing, or proceeding prevents the effective management or resolution of the conference, hearing, or proceeding;
   3. The court determines on a hearing-by-hearing basis that an in-person appearance would materially assist in the determination of the conference, hearing, or proceeding or in the effective management or resolution of the particular case;
   4. The quality of the technology or audibility at a conference, hearing, or proceeding inhibits the court reporter’s ability to accurately prepare a transcript of the conference, hearing, or proceeding;
   5. The quality of the technology or audibility at a conference, hearing, or proceeding prevents an attorney from being able to provide effective representation to the attorney’s client; or
   6. The quality of the technology or audibility at a conference, hearing, or proceeding inhibits a court interpreter’s ability to provide language access to a court user or authorized individual. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 367.75 (b).)
5. Requires, if the court conducts a trial, in whole or in part, through the use of remote technology, the official reporter or official reporter pro tempore shall be physically present in the courtroom, as specified. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 367.75 (d)(2).)
6. Defines “remote court reporting” to mean the use of a stenographic reporter who is not present in the courtroom to produce a verbatim record of court proceedings that are transmitted by audiovisual means to the reporter. (Government Code Section 69959.)
7. Prohibits, generally, the use of remote court reporting. (Ibid.)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.

COMMENTS: In recent years, California law has moved to increase the use of remote technology in court proceedings. While the pandemic spurred significant advancements in online teleconferencing technology, the use of remote technology in court proceedings has proved to be highly contentious in the Legislature. As a result of compromises by all stakeholders, the use of remote technology now generally requires the consent of the various parties and the court reporter’s physical presence in the courtroom to protect the accuracy of the record. Recognizing that technology may exist to enable a court reporter to record the official transcript of proceedings from a remote location, this measure authorizes a remote court reporting pilot program to be deployed in 11 superior courts across the state. In support of this bill, the author states:

AB 3013 establishes a one-year pilot project in 11 counties throughout California to develop the use of remote court reporters by trial courts. Despite being a highly skilled and well-paid profession, there is a growing shortage of court reporters. Existing statutes authorize court proceedings to be conducted remotely; however, court reporters must be physically present in a courtroom. In contrast, private court reporters have the flexibility to participate remotely. By establishing a remote reporting pilot project, AB 3013 would allow for the development of successful standards for producing accurate verbatim transcripts remotely. These standards could advise statewide implementation, which would provide courts with more staffing flexibility and make court employment more attractive.

Accurate court transcripts are critical to protect access to justice and court reporters are critical to providing accurate transcripts. Without the official record of what transpired at a court proceeding, litigants may be unable to draft orders effectively and will generally not be able to appeal decisions. For example, when issuing a judgment in a contested family law matter, the judge often requires one of the parties to prepare a written judgment, memorializing the orders of the court. Without a transcript, preparation of a judgment, and therefore enforcement of the orders made by the judge, may be all but impossible. Similarly, if a litigant seeks to modify a judgment based on a change of circumstances, it is often necessary to understand, and communicate to the court, the circumstances the court initially took into account in making a custody or support order, for example. Absent a transcript, this too may be very difficult.

In 2018, the California Supreme Court reaffirmed the value of a court reporter in the courtroom holding, “the absence of a court reporter at trial court proceedings and the resulting lack of a verbatim record of such proceedings will frequently be fatal to a litigant's ability to have his or her claims of trial court error resolved on the merits by an appellate court. This is so because it is a fundamental principle of appellate procedure that a trial court judgment is ordinarily presumed to be correct and the burden is on an appellant to demonstrate, on the basis of the record presented to the appellate court, that the trial court committed an error that justifies reversal of the judgment.” (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608-609.) The court in the Jameson case held that court reporters provide such a vital service that they must be provided by the courts in cases in which a civil litigant is afforded a fee waiver.

Despite the importance of court reporters, California courts are rarely able to provide court reporters in civil matters. To this end, starting in 2021, the Legislature allocated $30 million per year to the Judicial Council to increase the number of court reporters available in family and civil law cases. (SB 170 (Skinner) Chap. 240, Stats. 2021.) Notwithstanding the Legislature’s infusion of funding, and although stakeholders dispute the underlying causes, the Judicial Council has been unable to hire enough court reporters to ensure the availability of accurate records for all litigants.

This bill acknowledges that, despite the resources provided by the Legislature, the Judicial Council has failed to adequately recruit new court reporters. Recognizing that quality of life issues may be deterring the hiring of court reporters, this bill seek to study whether or not remote court reporting may be feasible in California courts. To that end, this bill authorizes 11 superior courts to commence a one-year pilot project to test the feasibility of remote court reporting. The bill establishes the minimum technological standards necessary for remote court reporting to ensure that any record produced by a court reporter working remotely is accurate and functional for use in potential appeals. Given the often contentious relationship between California’s courts and court reporters, this bill clarifies that court reporters working remotely cannot be treated differently than their peers who physically are working in courtrooms. Finally, this bill requires a report to the Legislature at the conclusion of the pilot program to enable the Legislature to evaluate the program’s success and determine if remote court reporting is a viable option for assisting in the recruitment and retention of qualified court reporters.

Should the pilot program prove successful, remote court reporting may prove to be a vastly superior option for expanding access to court records compared with other technologies. Recognizing the need for all litigants to have access to accurate records of the court proceedings, in recent years, the Legislature has grappled with how to best deploy technology in courtrooms. As discussed above, a general framework for remote appearances and witness testimony has been adopted in statute. The ongoing use of remote appearances has allowed the court to address the backlog in civil proceedings caused by the pandemic, and it appears that the use of remote technology for court appearances and testimony will continue.

However, utilizing technology to develop court transcripts remains far less settled. Due to the potential for critical errors or failure in the technology used to develop transcripts, the Legislature must proceed with extreme caution in authorizing the use of technology for developing court records. Indeed, the Legislature has indicated a strong preference for a person to continue to play a role in the development of a record, as utilizing recording technology without some form of human oversight may result in large segments of proceedings being omitted from the record as a result of an error by a recording system. Recognizing this preference for humans and technology working together to develop a record, in 2022, the Legislature approved AB 156 (Committee on Budget) Chap. 569, Stats. 2022, to authorize the licensure and deployment of voice writers in California courts. This technology utilized both human and computer interactions. Conversely, in 2023, a measure to authorize electronic recording of court proceedings stalled in the Legislature as it was acknowledged that the technology may not be accurate and may be prone to failures. Like the voice writer measure, this bill seeks to utilize new technologies while maintaining human oversight of the creation of court records.

It should be noted that the Judicial Council recently adopted minimum standards for the use of technology in courtrooms as required by the Legislature with the passage of SB 133 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review) Chap. 34, Stats. 2023. These standards will go into place on July 1, 2024. While not necessary for the purposes of a pilot program, the author may wish to consider working with the Judicial Council to align the technological requirements of this bill with the court’s standards to obtain study results that most mimic the actual technology to be utilized by the courts.

The COVID-19 pandemic derailed prior attempts to study remote court reporting. This measure can be viewed as a follow-up to prior Legislative efforts to study the effectiveness of remote court reporting. In 2019, the Legislature approved AB 253 (M. Stone) Chap. 419, Stats. 2019 which authorized a remote court reporting pilot project for Santa Clara County Superior Court. Unfortunately, just as that pilot project was commencing, the COVID-19 pandemic closed courthouses across the state and forced courts to quickly move all proceedings to remote operations. As a result of the necessary, but hastily conducted, move to remote proceedings, the technology needed to effectively study remote court reporting was not available during the Santa Clara County pilot project. While the Santa Clara County pilot participants righteously endeavored to study and develop best practices regarding remote court reporting, the realities of the pandemic produced a report that provided few long-term recommendations for remote court reporting in this state. This measure seeks to improve upon the AB 253 study by including more counties, providing more flexibility, and (one hopes) conducting the study during normal court operations.

Author’s amendments ensure all “civil” court users are able to weigh in on the pilot program. One of the most contentious issues regarding remote court reporting is the wide ranging definition of what is a “civil” matter utilized by California courts. When the first legislative authorization of remote technology (SB 241 (Umberg) Chap. 214, Stats. 2021) was adopted, much of the discussion surrounded the use of remote technology in traditional civil tort matters. However, because the Judicial Council defines “civil” matters to include quasi-criminal cases including juvenile justice matters and mental health commitments, not all stakeholders participated in the initial discussions of that matter. Recognizing that civil matters may include cases with liberty interests at stake, it is important that criminal counsel also play a part in studying remote technology in civil matters. Accordingly, the author is proposing to permit district attorneys and public defenders to participate on the committees preparing the reports on remote court reporting authorized by this bill. Accordingly, paragraph (6) of subdivision (b) of the proposed Government Code Section 69959.5 will now read:

(6) The presiding judge of a participating superior court shall appoint a committee to prepare a report to the Legislature on the results of the pilot project. The committee shall include at least two judicial officers who participated in the pilot project, at least two official reporters chosen by the exclusive bargaining representative of the official reporters of the participating superior court, and at least two attorneys who regularly practice in the participating superior court. The presiding judge shall also invite the Chief Public Defender or their designee, and the District Attorney or their designee, who may, at their discretion, participate on the committee. The committee’s report shall be presented to the Legislature, in accordance with Section 9795, within six months of the conclusion of the pilot project.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: This measure is sponsored by the Service Employees International Union, who represents the bulk of court-employed court reporters in California, and is supported by several other labor organizations. In support of this measure the Service Employees International Union writes:

Court reporting is a female-dominated career, with over 90% of reporters identifying as women. This highly skilled and well-paid profession affords women economic stability while providing an essential service to Californians.

California has the highest standards for this profession in the country, and the penalties for failure to certify a 100% accurate transcript could result in the loss of a license or even a misdemeanor. Our state rightly recognizes the value of a verbatim record and its necessity in ensuring a fair judicial system. It’s a long-held and undisputed fact that live court reporters are the gold standard in capturing and creating verbatim transcripts in the United States.

Prior to the pandemic, all court proceedings were conducted in person. In an effort to make official court reporter employment more attractive and flexible, AB 253 (Chapter 419, Statutes 2019) established a one-year remote court reporting pilot program in Santa Clara Superior Court. However, the pandemic derailed the effort when courthouses shut down in late March 2020. Therefore, more testing is needed to ensure that a high-quality verbatim transcript can be produced by remote court reporting.

Although existing statutes authorize court proceedings to be conducted remotely, court reporters must be physically present in a courtroom. In contrast, private court reporters have the flexibility to participate remotely. Additionally, California’s trial courts are facing recruitment and retention difficulties. While there are more than enough licensed court reporters in California to cover every judicial officer, reporters opt to work in the private freelance market rather than in court.

The private market is more lucrative and offers greater job flexibility than working for a court. A March 2024 analysis on the availability of court reporters conducted by the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) suggests the Legislature should consider remote reporting to “improve overall court efficiency and improve working conditions for some reporters. This could improve recruitment and retention.” However, the LAO cautions that consideration should be given to different case types, suggesting that some cases may not be appropriate for remote court reporting.

By establishing a remote reporting pilot project, AB 3013 would build off recent and successful legislative endeavors that established the licensure of court reporters who use voice writing technology and the ongoing budget allocation of $30 million for courts to recruit and retain court reporters. AB 3013 would increase access to quality transcripts for all litigants, regardless of status, by working to increase the likelihood that more reporters will work in trial courts. Court reporters who work for a court are free to litigants, and their transcripts are required to be 100% accurate. This ensures that all people will have access to verbatim transcripts, not just those who are wealthy enough to hire a private court reporter. Verbatim transcripts are a core underpinning of a fair system of justice.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California State Council of Service Employees International Union (sponsor)

California Labor Federation
Orange County Employees Association

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Nicholas Liedtke / JUD. / (916) 319-2334