I have no problem with today's opinion by the California Supreme Court, which holds that indigent litigants are entitled to have their hearings officially recorded on tape -- notwithstanding a statute that expressly precludes it -- if they can't afford a private court reporter. Indeed, that seems a very salutary holding, and I applaud it.
I'll nonetheless mention that the most critical part of the opinion, if my view, is the third footnote, so I want to make sure everyone reads it. The Court expressly holds that we're not just talking about in forma pauperis litigants; instead, this right applies to anyone who can't afford a court reporter. Here's what that footnote says:
"Although our discussion primarily refers to indigent litigants, we do not suggest some absolute standard of indigency. Instead, the right to proceed in forma pauperis extends to any litigant who cannot reasonably afford the costs necessary to access the judicial process. In this case, the litigants at issue include all litigants who cannot afford to hire a private court reporter to provide an official verbatim record of their proceeding. Because the costs involved in hiring a private court reporter can be significant, the population of litigants who cannot afford to hire a private court reporter, but who can afford to pay routine court fees and costs, may be large. Courts should be flexible in assessing a litigant’s ability to pay. We have previously rejected the contention that “a formal in forma pauperis application is required before relief can be granted.” (Conover, supra, 11 Cal.3d at p. 852.)"
As a result, I expect that a lot -- indeed, perhaps the majority of -- civil litigants will be entitled to ask for a tape recording under today's decision. With no formal IFP motion required.
I would expect to shortly see a massive increase in standardized recording in state courts.
