Reported / Citable
Background
California’s shortage of court reporters has often left civil litigants without an official word-for-word record of hearings and trials. That gap is especially damaging for litigants proceeding in forma pauperis—without fees because they cannot afford them—because an appellate court generally presumes the trial court was correct unless the appellant supplies an adequate record.
Legal-service organizations challenged practices in four superior courts. Several courts had begun electronic recording only in matters involving fundamental rights or liberty interests and sometimes conditioned recording on predictions about the hearing or whether it could be continued.
The Court’s Holding
The California Supreme Court granted mandate and imposed a statewide, ministerial duty. Upon an indigent litigant’s request, a superior court must provide meaningful access to an official verbatim record in every kind of case. A court reporter remains the statutory first choice, but when an official reporter or reporter pro tempore is unavailable, the court must electronically record the proceeding.
The court relied on the in forma pauperis doctrine and its earlier Jameson decision, which protect meaningful and equal access to appeal. The duty is not limited to disputes involving fundamental rights, and courts have no discretion to deny a record based on the proceeding’s predicted importance. A statutory restriction on electronic recording must yield through an implied exception when otherwise the indigent litigant would have no official record.
The court did not set an exhaustive definition of reporter unavailability or resolve the separate constitutional arguments. The operational question is whether refusing electronic recording would deprive the indigent party of equal access to an official record.
Key Takeaways
- Request a reporter and, if none is available, expressly request electronic recording on the record and in writing.
- The right applies in all case types, not only family, liberty, or fundamental-rights matters.
- Courts may not require case-specific predictions about likely testimony or the feasibility of a continuance.
- An official record is critical because appellate review ordinarily cannot reconstruct unrecorded oral proceedings.
Why It Matters
This decision materially improves appellate access for low-income Californians, including survivors of domestic violence and self-represented parties. Trial counsel and legal-aid organizations now have a clear statewide rule to invoke when staffing shortages would otherwise erase the record needed to challenge an erroneous ruling.