July 9, 2025
Senate Judiciary Committee
1021 “O” St., Rm. 3240
Sacramento, CA 95814
Senate Public Safety Committee
1021 O St., Ste. 6710
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: Opposition, unless amended, to AB 882
To the Members and Staff of the Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Committees:
Inland Action opposes Assembly Bill 882 unless amended. Inland Action is a non-profit, non-partisan corporation of public spirited leaders who have joined together to be catalysts for the economic well-being of the Inland Empire region of California since 1962. After careful review of the bill (as most recently amended on June 23rd) and following discussion with officials of our local (San Bernardino) Superior Court about how the bill would work in practice, we have grave concerns with the bill in its current form. We understand the bill has been referred to both of your committees following its passage in the Assembly, and write to express our opposition to the measure unless it is amended to remove the most troublesome provisions that unfortunately work contrary to the bill’s worthwhile purpose.
Make no mistake, we understand both the critical importance of having a verbatim record of proceedings in the trial court in order to permit meaningful appellate review, and that the grave statewide (and nationwide) shortage of certified shorthand reporters means that in far too many proceedings no such record is available. We very much support the expanded use of electronic recording when an official court reporter is not available. This is a matter of fundamental access to justice. If the Court is unable to provide a court reporter, then it must be allowed to make an electronic recording of the proceedings in order to preserve a verbatim record. This is already done in a limited category of cases, including limited civil and misdemeanor and infraction criminal cases, as permitted under existing law (Government Code § 69957). We understand from the San Bernardino Superior Court, for example, that there were approximately 242,751 hearings in such matters just in that Court and just in the one year period from June 1, 2024 through May 31, 2025. Electronic recording has proven to work well in the absence of an official court reporter. We support the expansion of the courts’ ability to capture a record by those means to a broader category of cases.
Unfortunately, while AB 882 purports to do so, as currently drafted it not only will fail to expand access to electronic recording, it will actually restrict access even where it is currently allowed. While the new Government Code § 69957.5 created by the bill would expand authorization for electronic recording beyond the limited civil and misdemeanor criminal courtrooms currently authorized under Government Code § 69957, for example to unlimited civil cases (cases with more than $35,000 at issue), subdivisions (c)(1) and (d) of the new section would condition ALL use of electronic recording in civil proceedings – even in limited civil cases where it can be used under existing law – on low-income litigants providing “written notice to the court at least one court day before the hearing” of the request for electronic recording.
This requirement does not exist in current law. If a low-income, self-represented litigant in a limited civil case (disputes under $35,000) comes to court today and there is no court reporter available, the court can simply push a button and electronically record the hearing so there will be a verbatim record of that proceeding. If AB 882 becomes law as currently drafted, however, and that same low-income, self-represented litigant comes to a future hearing in that same case and there still is no available court reporter, the court would not be able to record that hearing unless the litigant had provided advanced written notice to the court at least one court day before the hearing. After speaking with officials of our local Superior Court, we understand that most such litigants coming to court are unlikely to be aware of any such requirement of advance notice, and hearings therefore could not be recorded. Thus, far from actually expanding access to a verbatim record when no court reporter is available, AB 882 would in practice restrict such access to less than what is available under current law. We also fail to see any purpose to this advance-notice requirement, other than to act as a procedural impediment to obtaining a verbatim record.
Increased access to electronic recording of trial-court proceedings when no court reporter is available is a worthy and necessary pursuit, and we support it wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, AB 882 as presently drafted not only does not advance that pursuit, it retreats from it. The bill will in practice restrict the limited access to electronic recording that exists under current law. Unless amended, the bill would do more harm than good and should be rejected. With slight amendment, however, the bill can do great good.
The provisions of subdivision (a) of the proposed Government Code § 69957.5, expanding authorization for electronic recording to all cases other than juvenile dependency and felony-criminal matters, should be retained. The advance-notice provisions of subdivision (c)(1) and (d) in the current amended bill (as of June 23rd) should be stripped from the bill. With such amendments, we would support this bill. Unless so amended, however, Inland Action opposes AB 882.
Respectfully,
Julie Michaels
Executive Director
Inland Action
cc:
Sen. Eloise Gómez Reyes
Sen. Suzette Martinez Valladeres
Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez
Sen. Kelly Seyarto
Hon. Lisa Rogan, Presiding Judge, San Bernardino Superior Court