Public Justice supported a nonprofit challenging California’s ban on electronic recordings in most civil court hearings
In December 2024, The Family Violence Appellate Project (FVAP) and Bay Area Legal Aid (BayLegal) represent indigent and low-income litigants in trial and appellate proceedings; the groups filed a writ petition in the California Supreme Court to challenge the state’s ban on litigants’ use of electronic recordings in most civil court hearings to create a verbatim transcript of the proceedings. Typically, a court reporter is required for the hearing to be recorded; this ban still holds even when no court reporters are available.
There’s also a shortage of court reporter working for the courts, which means that California court hearings go unrecorded unless the litigant can afford to hire a private one. This shortage, plus the ban on e-recordings, mainly affects civil court cases, which include family law and restraining order hearings. The consequence for the litigants: there was no way for many litigants to appeal decisions. Without a record of court proceedings, there is no effective way to challenge them on appeal.
The Court previously held that all litigants were entitled to a verbatim record of trial court proceedings
The California Supreme Court had held that all litigants are entitled to a verbatim record of trial court proceedings, and if a party was unable to afford a court reporter, the court had to provide one. But using electronic recordings to create transcripts has never been allowed by the legislature or the California Supreme Court in these types of cases.
In the Supreme Court’s words, that right proved to be “illusory” because of this chronic shortage of court reporters in California court.
Public Justice filed an amicus brief in support of The Family Violence Appellate Project
Our amicus brief bolsters FVAP’s argument to allow access to electronic recording of these important civil proceedings.
The California Supreme Court held that the California constitution requires courts to allow for some method of having a verbatim record of court proceedings.
This means that when a litigant can’t afford a court reporter and the court can’t provide one, the court must allow electronic recording.