The California Supreme Court has clarified when electronic recording (ER) may be used in court, holding that indigent litigants are entitled to meaningful access to an official record of their proceedings. In Family Violence Appellate Project v. Superior Court, the Court ruled that ER may be used beyond existing statutory limits when an indigent litigant requests a record and an official court reporter or reporter pro tempore is unavailable. Importantly, the Court did not grant courts unlimited authority to use ER, nor did it declare statutes restricting electronic recording unconstitutional. The decision also leaves unanswered key questions, including how “indigent” and “unavailable” should be defined and what process courts should follow when a litigant requests a record.
California Court Reporters Association (CCRA) President Michelle Caldwell, CRR, released the following statement to theJCR.com:
We are deeply disappointed that years of layoffs, retirement buyouts, poor or nonexistent recruitment and retention efforts, and inadequate hiring practices created the very deficit in the state’s superior courts that the Supreme Court was forced to remedy. But we are committed to ensuring courts adhere strictly to the Supreme Court’s directive and do not simply use this as a vehicle for implementing electronic recording en masse. Even more specifically, we’ll be paying attention to make sure courts don’t manufacture “unavailability” as justification for expanding ER. We’re already seeing some courts take concerning actions. We’re watching, and we’re not going anywhere.
Deposition Reporters Association of California (CalDRA) President Cindy Vega, RDR, released the following statement to theJCR.com:
While CalDRA respects the recent Supreme Court decision acknowledging the need to provide a record for everyone, it also is worth mentioning the harm that ER will cause. This short-sighted solution will create long-term problems, as we all have seen with the widespread layoffs, inadequate hiring practices, and shoddy retention practices, all of which were decisions made to “fix” a problem. The long-term solution is to ensure indigent litigants are provided with the same standard that only a court reporter can provide, and the courts should do their due diligence to ensure their efforts are truly exhausted before the topic of providing ER is even approached.
While this was not the solution we were hoping the courts would adopt, we are confident that with the influx of newly licensed certified shorthand reporters in California, this will be a temporary solution utilized on a very limited basis to ensure everyone receives the accurate record they deserve.
For court reporters nationwide, the decision underscores both the essential role of the certified reporter and the importance of ensuring reporter availability in courts.
Comments are closed.