The Supreme Court today said it would decide the merits of Family Violence Appellate Project v. Superior Courts, a writ petition seeking to add an exception to Government Code section 69957(a), which prohibits in most cases the “use [of] electronic recording technology or equipment . . . to make the official record of an action or proceeding.” The statute allows possible electronic recording only “in a limited civil case, or a misdemeanor or infraction case.”
The petition asks for a ruling that the statutory ban “may not constitutionally be applied to preclude the use of electronic recording to create an official verbatim recording of civil proceedings involving litigants who cannot afford to pay for a private court reporter when the court does not itself supply a court reporter.”
Seven years ago, the court in Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594 held that superior courts must make court reporters available to indigent litigants who, by having had their court fees waived, need not pay a fee for a court reporter to attend a proceeding. (See here.) But court-employed court reporters have become increasingly scarce, requiring parties to pay private reporters to transcribe court proceedings. The Jameson court also touted a recommendation to implement a pilot electronic recording program, but noted, “In view of the restriction imposed by current legislation, . . . legislative authorization is required to proceed with th[e] recommendation.” (Id. at p. 598, fn. 2; see also at p. 618, fn. 17.)
It is unusual for a writ petition to be filed in the Supreme Court in the first instance and even more atypical for the court to agree to hear the matter itself. Normally, the most positive ruling that can be expected in such a situation is a direction for a Court of Appeal to address the petition’s merits.
Also unusual is that the court added a party to the proceeding. The writ petition, which was supported by numerous amicus briefs, named four counties’ superior courts as respondents and no real party in interest. Today’s order says, however, “The Legislature of the State of California is deemed the real party in interest and is invited to file a return.”
The returns to the writ petition — by the respondent superior courts and, possibly, the Legislature — are currently due by March 21 with a reply to be filed by April 7. Amicus briefs can be submitted by April 4.
[February 21 update: Here is the issue as summarized by court staff (see here) — “Does the prohibition on electronic recording of certain proceedings in Government Code section 69957, subdivision (a) violate the California Constitution when an official court reporter is unavailable and a litigant cannot afford to pay a private court reporter?”]
