Del Norte — Standing Order 25-002

Source: https://www.delnorte.courts.ca.gov/system/files/general/standing-order-25-002.pdf

SUPERIOR CALIFORNIA COURTOF

COUNTY OF DEL NORTE

In re Findings Concerning Availability STANDING ORDER 25-002

of Court Reporters for Del Norte County Superior RECORDING OF JUVENILE MATTERS AND
OTHER STATUTORIALLY MANDATED
Court and Standing Electronic Recording MATTERSDUE TO COURT REPORTER Orderre
SHORTAGE

L

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. STATEWIDE AND NATIONAL SHORTAGE OF COURT REPORTERS

Assetforth in the report prepared by the California Trial Court Consortium (""CTCC") dated January 25,

2022 entitled, "The Causes, Consequences and Outlook of the Court Reporter Shortage in California and Beyond"

there is a shortageof certified shorthand reporters ("CSR") in California and nationally'. These findings were

20 bolstered by the Judicial Council's January 2024 publication, "Fact Sheet: Shortage of Certified Shorthand Reporters|

21 in California."

22 Since 2012, the numberofcourt reporters in the United States has decreased by 20 percent. By 2028, the

largely attrition in the reporter23 numberofcourt reporters will have decreased by half. This decreaseis attributedto
retirement. For example, nationally, 1,120 reporters retire each year, while only 200 new reporters24 workforce dueto

25 enter the market, a loss of over 80 percent.

schools26 The reduction of students entering the workforce to become a CSRhas impacted court reporter

27 nationwide. Between 2012 and 2021, the numberofcourt reporter schools approved by the National Court Reporter:

28 ' The findings concerning the statewide and national shortage ofcourt reporters summarized herein, and the data which supports Judicial Council’s fact sheet and are adopted herein by reference. those findings, are set forth in the CTCC report andthe

Association reduced from 54 to 26. Students currently enrolled to become CSRs represent only 2.5 percentofthe

anticipated labor force need.

In California, court reporting programs have reduced from 16 in 2011 to 9 in 2021, a 44% decline. The

California exam also rigorous. Between 2018 and 2021, the dictation passagerate for the exam forlicensureis

8 to 21 percent. In 2019-20, the Court Reporters Board of California issued licenses to 66 new ranged from

reporters; in 2020-21, only 39 new court reporters were licensed while millions of new cases werefiled. (In FY

2021-22, over 4.4 million cases were filed statewide in the superior courts.) No reciprocity exists in California for

reporters licensed in otherstates. Between 2014 and 2021, the total number of licensed court reporters declined

from 7,058 to 5,728, of which only 5,043reside in California.’

California courts employ approximately 1,200 full-time equivalent court reporters, is estimated that andit
California courts may need an additional 650 full-time reporters. The ever-decreasing number of California-licensed

the labor market make reaching court reporters and difficulty competing with private employers, and one another,in

of incentives to these standards seemingly impossible. A vast majority oftrial courts have variety implementeda
recruit andretain court reporters. Incentives include signing bonuses, retention and longevity bonuses,increased

salaries, and more - to no avail.

hire a CSR. In 2019, ABS was adopted Legal changeshave also impactedthe ability of a court to

classify a temporary employee as an independentcontractor. This| establishing limits on the ability of an employerto

reduced freelance reporters willing to work on a part-time or on-call basis for the Court. In addition, accessto

the Public Employment Retirement System also impactedretirees, including limiting the number of changesto

20 hours a retired annuitant can work and the date on which a retired annuitant can first commence work. As a result of|

21 these changes, access to reporters who might desire to work intermittently or after retirement was reduced or

22 eliminated.

23 Finally, the Legislature limited the ability ofa court reporter to appear using remote technology starting in

24 January of 2020 (Government Code§ 69959), in January of 2022 (Code of Civil Procedure§ 367.75 (d)(2)), and

25 again in June of 2022 (Penal Code§ 977 (g)(2)). In conclusion, a court reporter shortage exists both in California and

26 nationally, which is unlikely to be resolved in the immediate future.

27

which supports28 2The findings concerning the statewide andnational shortage ofcourt reporters summarized herein, andthe data
those findings, are set forth in the CTCC report and the Judicial Council’s fact sheet and are adopted herein by reference.
3 Judicial Branch of California 2024 Court Statistic Report

B. COURT REPORTER AVAILABILITY FOR THE DEL NORTE SUPERIOR COURT

best efforts, Del Norte County Superior Court has not full staff of CSRs for many years. Despiteits hada
professional job boards, and To address this problem,the Court has postedhiring advertisementson its website,

various other methods. It has also increased CSR compensation by 12.5% since 2023 and offered sign on bonuses

and incentive pay.

to (3) CSRs with less than full- The Court currently only employed one(1) full-time CSR and has used up

time positions. The Court would employ part-time CSRs, but there have not been any qualified applicants. The only|

retire in December of 2025. currently CSR employedby the Court issetto

CSRs the reduction in the in which it would provide the Court restricted the cases numberof Dueto

mandated cases: death penalty proceedings. reporters. Since then, the Court has only provided reportersin statutorily

juvenile proceedings, felonies, and proceedings regarding withdrawal of consent to adopt. To free up CSRs to cover]

family matters, as needed. these areas, theyare no longer provided in limitedcivil and
Overall, the Court is faced withthis critical shortage and currently is unable to employ an adequate number

of CSRs. And, as with any workforce, there are times when one or moreofthe Court's CSRs are simply unavailable

In those circumstances, the Court has no choice forego having assigned CSRs| the circumstancesoflife. butto dueto
for matters, even those required bystatute, and mustrecord proceedings to preserve an adequate record.
I.

LEGAL FINDING

20 A, THE PRESUMED NOT HAVE INTENDED THE IMPOSSIBLE AND THE) LEGISLATUREIS TO COURT'S INABILITY TO PROVIDE A CSR IS LEGALLY EXCUSED 21 The have impossibility or impracticability. juvenile justice matters is excused requirementto dueto CSRin 22 "[W]here strict compliance with the terms statute is impossible, compliance as near as can be has been ofa 23 permitted on the principle that the law does not require impossibilities." (Board of Supervisors v. McMachon (1990. 24 219 Cal.App.3d 286, 300, quoting 73 Am.Jur.2d, Statute, § p. 278.) Here, despite diligent andsignificanteffort, the 25 Court is unable to provide a this matter due to the local, statewide, and national shortage of CSRs. However, CSRin 26 the Court must fulfill its core judicial functions. continueto 27

28

Refusing to proceed with a detention hearing until a available would have the following results: The CSRis

Court would fail to hold the detention hearing as soon as possible, as mandated by law. The Court would also lose

detain the the powerto minorif warranted.
If the Court could not proceed with a statutorily mandated would fail to meetthestrict deadlines and hearings,it
denylegally protected rights. Delay is presumed to be more prejudicial against minors than adult defendants. If the
juvenile is detained either through dependency or delinquency, the Court could be obligatedto release the juvenile,
potentially jeopardizing the safety of the juvenile and/or the community.

and in Waiting until a likely to increase the backlog and worsen the delayfor litigants now CSRis availableis
the future. The CSR shortage is morelikely to worsen than improve. The Court therefore finds that the statutory

obligation to provide a an impossible or impracticalact. CSRis excusedas
B. STATUTES MANDATING CSR AT THESE HEARINGSARE VOID AS APPLIED TO THE A
PRESENT SITUATION DUE TO CONFLICT WITH STATE AND FEDERAL

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

hearings are invalid as applied to the present situation because Statutory provisions mandating a CSRatthese
those requirementsare in conflict with state and federal constitutional provisions. Thestate and federal constitutions:

guarantee rights including due process and prompt adjudication. (Cal. Const. art. I, § 7. 15, 28, 29: U.S. Const., Sth.

6th, 14th Amends, In re Gault (1967) 387 U.S.1 Richard N.v. Sup. Ct. (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 579, 585.) As the

predicted to worsen, delaying hearings until CSRs mightbe available will simply exacerbate the CSRshortageis
problem. These litigants, and others, would be more likely to be deprivedof their constitutional rights. The Court

CSR reporting, including butnotlimited to, Welfare and Institutions20 thereforefinds statutory provisions mandating

v. Ho (2001) 8721 Codesection 677,are invalid and in conflict with constitutional provisions. (See Punsly

22 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1104), internal quotation marks removed : "The practical effect of holding a statute

utterly23 unconstitutional ‘as applied’ is to prevent its future application in a similar context, but notto renderit

24 inoperative.")

THE ABSENCE A CSR USING OF25 C. AN ADEQUATE RECORD WILLBE PRESERVEDIN

26 MODERN TECHNOLOGY

27 While balancing interests, due process requires the availability of an adequate record to afford appellate review.

28 Further, the absence of a record can impactthe ability of the assigned judicial officer to recall the proceedings,

evidence, settled statement. Electronic recording testimony, or to undertake functions such as preparation orto ofa

is currently authorized by statute for use in certain matters, including misdemeanor criminal matters, limited jurisdiction matters,traffic and infractions. In the absenceofan available CSR,use ofelectronic recording provides

afforded due process and to permit the Court to fulfill its core function: an adequate record to ensurethe parties are

the administration of justice. Despite statutory limits on the use of electronic recording, due process requires that

electronic recording be utilized in the absence of a CSR.

THEREFORE, THE COURT FINDS AND ORDERS:

not available for these proceedings; 1. The Court has confirmed thatthe services of an in-person CSRare

2. Bylaw,the Court is mandated to provide an adequate record to ensure the opportunity for meaningful

entitled to due appellate review in a matter in which thestate initiates an action to which a litigantis

of liberty or property; processthat mayresult in the deprivation

has initiated action which 3. Electronic reporting is authorized bystatute for other matters in which thestate

mayresult in deprival of liberty or property;

not the prospect of securing the services of an in-person 4. Further delay of these proceedingsfor reporteris

appropriate as such uncertain and such delay doesnotservethe interests ofjustice; and prospectis

5. Electronic reporting will providethe litigants with an adequate record to ensure meaningful appellate review.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

ie IN MCELFRESH, 20 Presiding Judge

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28