The California Supreme Court accepted on Feb. 21 a challenge to the state’s limits on audio recordings in the courtroom. The law already allows for audio recordings if an official court reporter is unavailable, but only in limited civil, misdemeanor or infraction cases.
“This case presents the following issue: 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?” the court’s summary of the case reads.
The case was brought by the nonprofit legal organization Family Violence Appellate Project, which brings appellate cases to benefit victims of domestic violence. The nonprofit spent $2.7 million in 2023—and raised $2 million from direct contributions—according to their filings.
They argue that the high cost of available court reporters violates the equal protection rights of low-income litigants.
“Without a verbatim record, it is essentially impossible for litigants to appeal an incorrect decision that may be harmful to them. Currently, litigants are denied equal access to the appellate courts simply because they cannot afford a private court reporter – an average cost of $3,300 per day,” a press release written by the FVAP’s Thao Weldy reads.
The California Lawyers Association submitted a letter of amicus curiae in favor of the petition.
“Courts and practitioners have recognized for decades that the state’s historical practice of relying on court reporters to prepare a record of oral proceedings was fast approaching a breaking point, as the number of court reporters has steadily decreased while the number of court proceedings has dramatically increased,” the letter reads.
The letter continues to say that the high cost of private court reporters makes them out of reach of many litigants—even if they technically are available.
Covington & Burling LLP, Community Legal Aid SoCal and Bay Area Legal Aid represent the nonprofit.
Case No. S288176
