California Supreme Court Orders Electronic Recording to Secure the Record on Appeal for Indigent Civil Litigants
The California Supreme Court ruled Monday that superior courts must make electronic audio recording available to indigent civil litigants when no official court reporter is present, holding that trial courts have no discretion to leave fee-waiver recipients without a means to preserve the record on appeal. The unanimous opinion in Family Violence Appellate Project v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County, No. S288176, was authored by Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero.
The decision extends the court’s 2018 ruling in Jameson v. Desta, 5 Cal.5th 594, which held that trial courts adopting a general policy against providing official reporters in civil cases must carve out an exception for fee-waiver recipients so that indigent litigants can obtain a verbatim record. In the eight years since Jameson, the court wrote, that guarantee has “proven illusory,” as many California superior courts do not employ sufficient reporters to comply, leaving indigent civil litigants to either accept a continuance or proceed with no way to preserve their proceedings for appeal.
The petitioners, led by the Family Violence Appellate Project, sought a writ directing Contra Costa’s superior court to provide electronic recording in civil matters where no reporter is available. According to the opinion issued by the Supreme Court of California, the court held that where a superior court cannot supply an official reporter to an indigent litigant who has requested one, the court must provide electronic audio recording as an alternative means of creating a verbatim record.
The Reporter Shortage Behind the Ruling
The opinion frames the ruling as a response to a structural shortfall the court described as complex and disputed in its causes but not in its effects. Litigants who can afford to hire a private court reporter, who serves as an official reporter pro tempore, can create a verbatim record. Those who cannot afford one, and who appear in courtrooms without an employed official reporter, are left without recourse.
The California Supreme Court, quoting Jameson, reiterated that “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.” The court noted that electronic audio recording is commonly used in federal courts and many state courts to create official records, and that as a technical matter, a reporter is not necessary to create an accurate and reliable transcript of what occurred.
No Discretion Left to Trial Courts
The court grounded the obligation in the in forma pauperis doctrine and in the inherent judicial power to secure meaningful access to the courts for indigent litigants. According to The Recorder’s coverage of the decision, the court held that trial courts have “no discretion” to deny electronic recording as a backstop when reporters are unavailable, closing what had functioned as an enforcement gap under Jameson.
The Contra Costa Superior Court had taken the position that its inability to provide reporters did not compel it to adopt electronic recording as a substitute. The Supreme Court rejected that reading of Jameson, treating the availability of a verbatim record, rather than the identity of the person or device creating it, as the constitutional and equitable requirement.
A Million Hearings With No Record on Appeal
The scope of the shortfall drove the court’s willingness to prescribe a remedy. Since Jameson was decided, the Los Angeles Times reported, more than a million California civil hearings have gone forward without a transcript, a figure the paper attributed to the petitioners and to court-system data.
The Mercury News reported that the ruling extends the Jameson guarantee to a category of litigants who had, in practice, been left without any verbatim record, describing the decision as a response to the disputed reporter shortage across California trial courts.
The court’s opinion does not address the funding mechanism for electronic recording equipment or set a compliance timeline, and it does not disturb the statutory framework under which certified shorthand reporters remain the default means of creating an official record in California civil proceedings.
