Del Norte — Standing Order 26-003

Source: https://www.delnorte.courts.ca.gov/system/files/general/standing-order-26-003.pdf

Sparse pages use OCR; original PDF remains authoritative.

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF DEL NORTE In re Findings Concerning Availability STANDING ORDER 26-003 of Court Reporters for Del Norte County Superior RECORDING OF JUVENILE MATTERS AND OTHER STATUTORIALLY MANDATED Court and Standing Order re Electronic Recording MATTERS DUE TO COURT REPORTER SHORTAGE FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. STATEWIDE AND NATIONAL SHORTAGE OF COURT REPORTERS As set forth in the report prepared by the California Trial Court Consortium ("CTCC") dated January 25, 2022 entitled, The 5 1 17 2 2 4 435 1301 83 23 96.485268 Causes, 5 1 17 2 2 5 527 1301 158 25 96.759377 Consequences 5 1 17 2 2 6 693 1301 39 19 96.817436 and 5 1 17 2 2 7 741 1300 89 20 96.353035 Outlook 5 1 17 2 2 8 838 1300 26 20 96.675179 of 5 1 17 2 2 9 869 1301 32 19 96.733879 the 5 1 17 2 2 10 910 1301 62 19 96.417938 Court 5 1 17 2 2 11 982 1301 95 25 96.624702 Reporter 5 1 17 2 2 12 1085 1301 96 25 96.341255 Shortage 5 1 17 2 2 13 1191 1300 19 20 96.346443 in 5 1 17 2 2 14 1219 1300 112 21 96.231247 California 5 1 17 2 2 15 1339 1301 38 19 96.231247 and 5 1 17 2 2 16 1388 1301 94 25 96.502480 Beyond there is a shortage of certified shorthand reporters ("CSR") in California and nationally'. These findings were bolstered by the Judicial Council's January 2024 publication, Fact 5 1 17 2 4 10 964 1428 66 20 96.270363 Sheet: 5 1 17 2 4 11 1040 1428 97 26 96.927422 Shortage 5 1 17 2 4 12 1146 1428 25 20 97.016113 of 5 1 17 2 4 13 1176 1428 97 21 96.989967 Certified 5 1 17 2 4 14 1283 1428 112 21 97.014709 Shorthand 5 1 17 2 4 15 1405 1429 106 26 96.907875 Reporters 4 1 17 2 5 0 214 1492 156 21 -1 5 1 17 2 5 1 214 1493 18 19 96.988564 in 5 1 17 2 5 2 241 1492 129 21 82.900574 California.” 3 1 17 3 0 0 212 1556 1291 217 -1 4 1 17 3 1 0 314 1556 1164 27 -1 5 1 17 3 1 1 314 1557 58 20 96.930740 Since 5 1 17 3 1 2 381 1557 61 23 96.791237 2012, 5 1 17 3 1 3 451 1557 32 20 96.935608 the 5 1 17 3 1 4 491 1556 85 21 96.913368 number 5 1 17 3 1 5 584 1556 25 21 96.951149 of 5 1 17 3 1 6 614 1560 56 17 96.732521 court 5 1 17 3 1 7 678 1560 97 22 96.906593 reporters 5 1 17 3 1 8 785 1556 18 20 96.936050 in 5 1 17 3 1 9 812 1557 32 20 96.992294 the 5 1 17 3 1 10 854 1556 73 21 96.935318 United 5 1 17 3 1 11 937 1557 64 20 96.935318 States 5 1 17 3 1 12 1010 1557 34 20 96.837242 has 5 1 17 3 1 13 1053 1556 108 21 96.041214 decreased 5 1 17 3 1 14 1170 1557 26 26 96.041214 by 5 1 17 3 1 15 1205 1557 26 20 96.968605 20 5 1 17 3 1 16 1240 1561 87 22 96.960960 percent. 5 1 17 3 1 17 1337 1558 30 25 96.978592 By 5 1 17 3 1 18 1376 1558 61 22 96.563454 2028, 5 1 17 3 1 19 1445 1557 33 20 96.563454 the 4 1 17 3 2 0 213 1620 1275 27 -1 5 1 17 3 2 1 213 1620 84 20 96.940628 number 5 1 17 3 2 2 304 1620 26 20 96.567863 of 5 1 17 3 2 3 334 1624 56 16 96.728714 court 5 1 17 3 2 4 399 1624 97 22 96.528908 reporters 5 1 17 3 2 5 505 1620 40 20 96.740273 will 5 1 17 3 2 6 555 1620 50 20 97.015511 have 5 1 17 3 2 7 614 1620 108 20 96.949165 decreased 5 1 17 3 2 8 731 1620 26 26 96.632957 by 5 1 17 3 2 9 766 1620 47 20 95.964722 half. 5 1 17 3 2 10 823 1620 47 20 96.574165 This 5 1 17 3 2 11 880 1620 94 20 96.574165 decrease 5 1 17 3 2 12 984 1620 15 20 96.938812 is 5 1 17 3 2 13 1009 1620 74 26 96.988953 largely 5 1 17 3 2 14 1091 1621 106 20 95.547913 attributed 5 1 17 3 2 15 1205 1624 21 17 97.007210 to 5 1 17 3 2 16 1235 1621 86 20 96.760841 attrition 5 1 17 3 2 17 1331 1621 18 20 96.934715 in 5 1 17 3 2 18 1358 1621 33 20 96.888947 the 5 1 17 3 2 19 1400 1625 88 22 96.962204 reporter 4 1 17 3 3 0 213 1684 1290 27 -1 5 1 17 3 3 1 213 1684 112 20 96.656670 workforce 5 1 17 3 3 2 333 1684 39 20 96.815392 due 5 1 17 3 3 3 381 1688 20 16 96.815392 to 5 1 17 3 3 4 410 1684 118 20 96.275726 retirement. 5 1 17 3 3 5 539 1685 37 19 96.275726 For 5 1 17 3 3 6 584 1684 98 26 96.907700 example, 5 1 17 3 3 7 692 1684 115 26 96.562973 nationally, 5 1 17 3 3 8 820 1685 58 21 95.994881 1,120 5 1 17 3 3 9 887 1688 97 22 96.900436 reporters 5 1 17 3 3 10 993 1684 57 20 96.517830 retire 5 1 17 3 3 11 1058 1685 49 19 96.517830 each 5 1 17 3 3 12 1116 1691 53 19 96.801552 year, 5 1 17 3 3 13 1178 1685 60 19 96.885239 while 5 1 17 3 3 14 1247 1685 48 25 96.885239 only 5 1 17 3 3 15 1303 1685 40 19 96.911545 200 5 1 17 3 3 16 1353 1691 44 14 96.969933 new 5 1 17 3 3 17 1406 1689 97 22 95.790504 reporters 4 1 17 3 4 0 212 1747 472 26 -1 5 1 17 3 4 1 212 1751 55 16 96.654160 enter 5 1 17 3 4 2 274 1748 33 19 96.654160 the 5 1 17 3 4 3 316 1748 81 21 96.922401 market, 5 1 17 3 4 4 406 1754 11 13 96.705757 a 5 1 17 3 4 5 427 1748 41 19 96.885429 loss 5 1 17 3 4 6 479 1747 21 20 96.914078 of 5 1 17 3 4 7 511 1754 44 13 96.908279 over 5 1 17 3 4 8 564 1748 25 19 96.908279 80 5 1 17 3 4 9 598 1751 86 22 96.541748 percent. 3 1 17 4 0 0 213 1811 1298 90 -1 4 1 17 4 1 0 313 1811 1146 26 -1 5 1 17 4 1 1 313 1811 41 20 96.488487 The 5 1 17 4 1 2 363 1811 102 20 97.000755 reduction 5 1 17 4 1 3 475 1811 25 20 96.925049 of 5 1 17 4 1 4 505 1811 89 20 96.692421 students 5 1 17 4 1 5 602 1811 91 26 96.687057 entering 5 1 17 4 1 6 700 1811 33 20 96.969856 the 5 1 17 4 1 7 742 1811 113 20 96.360962 workforce 5 1 17 4 1 8 863 1815 20 16 96.360962 to 5 1 17 4 1 9 892 1811 84 20 96.624512 become 5 1 17 4 1 10 985 1817 12 14 96.642616 a 5 1 17 4 1 11 1005 1812 50 19 95.850327 CSR 5 1 17 4 1 12 1065 1811 34 20 95.850327 has 5 1 17 4 1 13 1109 1811 99 26 96.847809 impacted 5 1 17 4 1 14 1217 1815 56 17 96.904350 court 5 1 17 4 1 15 1282 1816 88 21 96.793732 reporter 5 1 17 4 1 16 1378 1812 81 20 96.842812 schools 4 1 17 4 2 0 213 1874 1298 27 -1 5 1 17 4 2 1 213 1874 126 21 96.797859 nationwide. 5 1 17 4 2 2 350 1875 95 20 96.698990 Between 5 1 17 4 2 3 453 1875 54 19 96.863525 2012 5 1 17 4 2 4 517 1875 38 20 96.000916 and 5 1 17 4 2 5 563 1875 61 22 95.935081 2021, 5 1 17 4 2 6 633 1875 32 20 96.907333 the 5 1 17 4 2 7 674 1875 84 20 96.763229 number 5 1 17 4 2 8 760 1870 18 35 96.709129 of 5 1 17 4 2 9 781 1875 71 20 96.872009 court 5 1 17 4

4 2 1 213 1874 126 21 96.797859 nationwide. 5 1 17 4 2 2 350 1875 95 20 96.698990 Between 5 1 17 4 2 3 453 1875 54 19 96.863525 2012 5 1 17 4 2 4 517 1875 38 20 96.000916 and 5 1 17 4 2 5 563 1875 61 22 95.935081 2021, 5 1 17 4 2 6 633 1875 32 20 96.907333 the 5 1 17 4 2 7 674 1875 84 20 96.763229 number 5 1 17 4 2 8 760 1870 18 35 96.709129 of 5 1 17 4 2 9 781 1875 71 20 96.872009 court 5 1 17 4 2 10 861 1879 87 21 96.872009 reporter 5 1 17 4 2 11 956 1875 81 20 95.793686 schools 5 1 17 4 2 12 1046 1875 102 26 97.016304 approved 5 1 17 4 2 13 1157 1875 25 26 97.017639 by 5 1 17 4 2 14 1191 1875 33 20 97.017639 the 5 1 17 4 2 15 1232 1875 95 20 96.831917 National 5 1 17 4 2 16 1336 1876 61 20 96.422134 Court 5 1 17 4 2 17 1407 1876 104 25 91.812790 Reporters 2 1 18 0 0 0 211 1936 1290 57 -1 3 1 18 1 0 0 211 1936 1290 57 -1 4 1 18 1 1 0 215 1936 1286 28 -1 5 1 18 1 1 1 215 1936 3 12 91.190956 ' 5 1 18 1 1 2 228 1940 37 18 96.956795 The 5 1 18 1 1 3 273 1940 81 23 96.892662 findings 5 1 18 1 1 4 361 1940 111 23 94.882103 concerning 5 1 18 1 1 5 479 1940 29 18 96.355202 the 5 1 18 1 1 6 516 1940 92 18 96.980026 statewide 5 1 18 1 1 7 616 1940 35 18 96.980682 and 5 1 18 1 1 8 659 1940 78 18 96.654068 national 5 1 18 1 1 9 746 1940 83 23 96.257591 shortage 5 1 18 1 1 10 837 1940 22 18 95.110268 of 5 1 18 1 1 11 864 1943 50 15 95.110268 court 5 1 18 1 1 12 922 1943 88 20 96.991554 reporters 5 1 18 1 1 13 1017 1940 121 19 94.754478 summarized 5 1 18 1 1 14 1146 1940 66 19 94.754478 herein, 5 1 18 1 1 15 1221 1941 35 18 95.905418 and 5 1 18 1 1 16 1264 1941 29 18 96.613693 the 5 1 18 1 1 17 1301 1941 41 18 96.557861 data 5 1 18 1 1 18 1349 1941 59 18 95.862129 which 5 1 18 1 1 19 1417 1944 84 20 96.374641 supports 4 1 18 1 2 0 211 1969 1211 24 -1 5 1 18 1 2 1 211 1969 53 18 96.910225 those 5 1 18 1 2 2 272 1969 84 23 94.861908 findings. 5 1 18 1 2 3 365 1974 29 13 96.988861 are 5 1 18 1 2 4 402 1972 26 15 96.764290 set 5 1 18 1 2 5 436 1969 47 18 96.764290 forth 5 1 18 1 2 6 492 1969 17 18 96.830948 in 5 1 18 1 2 7 517 1969 30 18 93.298759 the 5 1 18 1 2 8 554 1969 63 18 92.910484 CTCC 5 1 18 1 2 9 625 1972 59 20 96.956802 report 5 1 18 1 2 10 692 1969 34 18 97.009415 and 5 1 18 1 2 11 734 1969 30 18 97.001610 the 5 1 18 1 2 12 771 1969 75 18 93.306091 Judicial 5 1 18 1 2 13 855 1969 96 18 90.153961 Council’s 5 1 18 1 2 14 959 1969 35 18 96.859787 fact 5 1 18 1 2 15 1002 1969 50 19 96.610794 sheet 5 1 18 1 2 16 1060 1969 34 19 96.860161 and 5 1 18 1 2 17 1103 1975 29 13 96.390350 are 5 1 18 1 2 18 1139 1970 79 23 96.336983 adopted 5 1 18 1 2 19 1225 1970 61 18 96.047096 herein 5 1 18 1 2 20 1295 1970 23 23 96.665955 by 5 1 18 1 2 21 1326 1970 96 18 96.796822 reference. 2 1 19 0 0 0 1510 27 8 1973 -1 3 1 19 1 0 0 1510 27 8 1973 -1 4 1 19 1 1 0 1510 27 8 1973 -1 5 1 19 1 1 1 1510 27 8 1973 95.000000 2 1 20 0 0 0 1510 27 8 2141 -1 3 1 20 1 0 0 1510 27 8 2141 -1 4 1 20 1 1 0 1510 27 8 2141 -1 5 1 20 1 1 1 1510 27 8 2141 95.000000

10 11 12 13 15 16 17 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Association reduced from 54 to 26. Students currently enrolled to become CSRs represent only 2.5 percent of the 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 for licensure is also rigorous. Between 2018 and 2021, the dictation passage rate for the exam ranged from 8 to 21 percent. In 2019-20, the Court Reporters Board of California issued licenses to 66 new reporters; in 2020-21, only 39 new court reporters were licensed while millions of new cases were filed. (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 other states. Between 2014 and 2021, the total number of licensed court reporters declined from 7,058 to 5,728, of which only 5,043 reside in California.* California courts employ approximately 1,200 full-time equivalent court reporters, and it is estimated that California courts may need an additional 650 full-time reporters. The ever-decreasing number of California-licensed court reporters and difficulty competing with private employers, and one another, in the labor market make reaching these standards seemingly impossible. A vast majority of trial courts have implemented a variety of incentives to recruit and retain court reporters. Incentives include signing bonuses, retention and longevity bonuses, increased salaries, and more - to no avail. Legal changes have also impacted the ability of a court to hire a CSR. In 2019, ABS was adopted establishing limits on the ability of an employer to classify a temporary employee as an independent contractor. This} reduced access to freelance reporters willing to work on a part-time or on-call basis for the Court. In addition, changes to the Public Employment Retirement System also impacted retirees, including limiting the number of hours a retired annuitant can work and the date on which a retired annuitant can first commence work. As a result of these changes, access to reporters who might desire to work intermittently or after retirement was reduced or eliminated. Finally, the Legislature limited the ability of a court reporter to appear using remote technology starting in January of 2020 (Government Code§ 69959), in January of 2022 (Code of Civil Procedure§ 367.75 (d)(2)), and again in June of 2022 (Penal Code§ 977 (g){2)). In conclusion, a court reporter shortage exists both in California and nationally, which is unlikely to be resolved in the immediate future. ?The findings concerning the statewide and national shortage of court reporters summarized herein, and the data which supports 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

19 20 21 23 24 25 26 28 B. COURT REPORTER AVAILABILITY FOR THE DEL NORTE SUPERIOR COURT Despite its best efforts, Del Norte County Superior Court has not had a full staff of CSRs for many years. To address this problem, the Court has posted hiring advertisements on its website, professional job boards, and various other methods. It has also increased CSR compensation by 12.5% since 2023 and offered sign on bonuses and incentive pay. The Court currently only employed one (1) full-time CSR and has used up to (3) CSRs with less than full- time positions. The Court would employ part-time CSRs, but there have not been any qualified applicants. The only) currently CSR employed by the Court is set to retire in December of 2025. Due to the reduction in the number of CSRs the Court restricted the cases in which it would provide reporters. Since then, the Court has only provided reporters in statutorily mandated cases: death penalty proceedings. juvenile proceedings, felonies, and proceedings regarding withdrawal of consent to adopt. To free up CSRs to cover| these areas, they are no longer provided in limited civil and family matters, as needed. Overall, the Court is faced with this critical shortage and currently is unable to employ an adequate number of CSRs. And, as with any workforce, there are times when one or more of the Court's CSRs are simply unavailable due to the circumstances of life. In those circumstances, the Court has no choice but to forego having assigned CSRs| for matters, even those required by statute, and must record proceedings to preserve an adequate record. Il. LEGAL FINDING A. THE LEGISLATURE IS PRESUMED TO NOT HAVE INTENDED THE IMPOSSIBLE AND THE} COURT'S INABILITY TO PROVIDE A CSR IS LEGALLY EXCUSED The requirement to have CSR in juvenile justice matters is excused due to impossibility or impracticability. [W]here 5 1 13 1 2 2 324 1574 54 20 96.742775 strict 5 1 13 1 2 3 386 1574 127 26 96.742775 compliance 5 1 13 1 2 4 522 1574 47 20 96.746140 with 5 1 13 1 2 5 578 1574 32 20 96.981651 the 5 1 13 1 2 6 618 1578 61 16 96.937454 terms 5 1 13 1 2 7 687 1573 26 21 89.524452 of 5 1 13 1 2 8 717 1580 12 14 89.524452 a 5 1 13 1 2 9 737 1577 71 17 96.635643 statute 5 1 13 1 2 10 818 1574 15 20 96.975052 is 5 1 13 1 2 11 843 1574 124 26 96.570335 impossible, 5 1 13 1 2 12 977 1573 126 27 96.843971 compliance 5 1 13 1 2 13 1111 1580 23 14 96.957413 as 5 1 13 1 2 14 1142 1580 47 14 96.869133 near 5 1 13 1 2 15 1197 1580 22 14 96.745720 as 5 1 13 1 2 16 1227 1580 37 14 96.962860 can 5 1 13 1 2 17 1273 1574 25 20 96.487122 be 5 1 13 1 2 18 1307 1574 35 20 96.229088 has 5 1 13 1 2 19 1351 1574 50 20 96.229088 been 2 1 14 0 0 0 213 1637 1296 27 -1 3 1 14 1 0 0 213 1637 1296 27 -1 4 1 14 1 1 0 213 1637 1296 27 -1 5 1 14 1 1 1 213 1638 105 26 96.175896 permitted 5 1 14 1 1 2 326 1644 26 14 96.404106 on 5 1 14 1 1 3 361 1638 32 20 96.933907 the 5 1 14 1 1 4 402 1637 97 27 96.988068 principle 5 1 14 1 1 5 508 1638 40 20 96.921867 that 5 1 14 1 1 6 557 1638 32 20 96.831741 the 5 1 14 1 1 7 599 1638 37 20 96.605797 law 5 1 14 1 1 8 645 1638 49 20 96.415924 does 5 1 14 1 1 9 703 1641 34 17 96.946335 not 5 1 14 1 1 10 746 1637 77 26 93.289352 require 5 1 14 1 1 11 832 1637 177 26 90.961334 impossibilities. (Board of Supervisors v. McMachon (1990): 219 Cal.App.3d 286, 300, quoting 73 Am.Jur.2d, Statute, § p. 278.) Here, despite diligent and significant effort, the Court is unable to provide a CSR in this matter due to the local, statewide, and national shortage of CSRs. However, the Court must continue to fulfill its core judicial functions.

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 27 28 Refusing to proceed with a detention hearing until a CSR is available would have the following results: The Court would fail to hold the detention hearing as soon as possible, as mandated by law. The Court would also lose the power to detain the minor if warranted . If the Court could not proceed with a statutorily mandated hearings, it would fail to meet the strict deadlines and deny legally 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 obligated to release the juvenile, potentially jeopardizing the safety of the juvenile and/or the community. Waiting until a CSR is available is likely to increase the backlog and worsen the delay for litigants now and in the future. The CSR shortage is more likely to worsen than improve. The Court therefore finds that the statutory obligation to provide a CSR is excused as an impossible or impractical act. B. STATUTES MANDATING A CSR AT THESE HEARINGS ARE VOID AS APPLIED TO THE PRESENT SITUATION DUE TO CONFLICT WITH STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS Statutory provisions mandating a CSR at these hearings are invalid as applied to the present situation because those requirements are in conflict with state and federal constitutional provisions. The state 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 CSR shortage is predicted to worsen, delaying hearings until CSRs might be available will simply exacerbate the problem. These litigants, and others, would be more likely to be deprived of their constitutional rights. The Court therefore finds statutory provisions mandating CSR reporting, including but not limited to, Welfare and Institutions Code section 677, are invalid and in conflict with constitutional provisions. (See Punsly v. Ho (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1104), internal quotation marks removed : The 5 1 14 1 5 10 963 1552 94 26 96.843185 practical 5 1 14 1 5 11 1066 1552 62 21 96.794815 effect 5 1 14 1 5 12 1136 1552 26 21 96.898293 of 5 1 14 1 5 13 1166 1553 85 26 96.957428 holding 5 1 14 1 5 14 1259 1559 11 14 96.695152 a 5 1 14 1 5 15 1278 1557 72 16 96.987030 statute 4 1 14 1 6 0 210 1616 1213 26 -1 5 1 14 1 6 1 210 1616 177 20 96.721313 unconstitutional 5 1 14 1 6 2 397 1617 26 19 85.678329 ‘as 5 1 14 1 6 3 431 1616 86 26 92.782043 applied’ 5 1 14 1 6 4 526 1616 17 20 96.862991 is 5 1 14 1 6 5 551 1620 21 16 96.934654 to 5 1 14 1 6 6 580 1620 82 22 96.158607 prevent 5 1 14 1 6 7 671 1616 24 20 96.158607 its 5 1 14 1 6 8 704 1616 65 20 96.604263 future 5 1 14 1 6 9 777 1616 122 26 96.808426 application 5 1 14 1 6 10 909 1616 18 20 96.772324 in 5 1 14 1 6 11 936 1622 12 14 96.772324 a 5 1 14 1 6 12 956 1616 77 20 96.865814 similar 5 1 14 1 6 13 1040 1620 87 19 96.927139 context, 5 1 14 1 6 14 1137 1617 34 20 96.636421 but 5 1 14 1 6 15 1179 1620 34 16 96.636421 not 5 1 14 1 6 16 1221 1620 22 16 96.846886 to 5 1 14 1 6 17 1251 1617 71 20 96.620880 render 5 1 14 1 6 18 1331 1617 13 20 96.620880 it 5 1 14 1 6 19 1353 1617 70 25 95.629959 utterly 4 1 14 1 7 0 211 1680 151 25 -1 5 1 14 1 7 1 211 1680 151 25 88.780396 inoperative.) C. AN ADEQUATE RECORD WILL BE PRESERVED IN THE ABSENCE OF A CSR USING MODERN TECHNOLOGY While balancing interests, due process requires the availability of an adequate record to afford appellate review. Further, the absence of a record can impact the ability of the assigned judicial officer to recall the proceedings, evidence, or to testimony, or to undertake functions such as preparation of a settled statement. Electronic recording

11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 is currently authorized by statute for use in certain matters, including misdemeanor criminal matters, limited jurisdiction matters, traffic and infractions. In the absence of an available CSR, use of electronic recording provides an adequate record to ensure the parties are afforded due process and to permit the Court to fulfill its core function: 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:

1. The Court has confirmed that the services of an in-person CSR are not available for these proceedings;
2. By law, the Court is mandated to provide an adequate record to ensure the opportunity for meaningful appellate review in a matter in which the state initiates an action to which a litigant is entitled to due process that may result in the deprivation of liberty or property;
3. Electronic reporting is authorized by statute for other matters in which the state has initiated action which may result in deprival of liberty or property;
4. Further delay of these proceedings for the prospect of securing the services of an in-person reporter is not appropriate as such prospect is uncertain and such delay does not serve the interests of justice; and
5. Electronic reporting will provide the litigants with an adequate record to ensure meaningful appellate review.
6. A certified court transcription of the reported or recorded proceedings (See also Cal. Rule of Ct. 2.952(j)(1)-(3)) is the official record of the Superior Court of California, County of Del Norte. (Family Violence Appellate Project v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (Cal., Aug. 10, 2026, No. S288176) ; 2026 WL 2291541, at *1.) IT IS SO ORDERED. HON.’D, DARREN MCELFRESH, Presiding Judge