California 2011-2012 Regular Session Status: Enacted

SB 1574 — Discovery: electronically stored information.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 72, Statutes of 2012.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. ✓
    Passed Senate
  4. ✓
    Passed Assembly
  5. ✓
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced March 08, 2012. Enacted.

Prognosis

Likely to advance 70% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

High

How often bills like it became law.

  • Enacted

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 1 sponsor

    1 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 4 recorded votes so far.

Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.

Summary

Existing law provides procedures for the production of evidence by subpoena. Existing law provides that a subpoena may require a witness to bring any books, documents, or other things under the witness's control that he or she is bound by law to produce in evidence. This bill would include electronically stored information among the things under a witness's control that the witness would be bound by law to produce pursuant to a subpoena. The bill would provide procedures for objecting to the specified form or forms of producing the electronically stored information requested by the subpoena. The Civil Discovery Act authorizes a party to a civil action to obtain discovery, as specified, by inspecting documents, tangible things, and land or other property in the possession of any other party to the action. The act defines "electronically stored information" as information that is stored in an electronic medium. This bill would expand the scope of discovery described above to include electronically stored information. The bill would establish procedures for a person to obtain discovery of electronically stored information, in addition to documents, tangible things, and land or other property in the possession of any other party to the action. The bill would also permit discovery by the means of copying, testing, or sampling, in addition to inspection of documents, tangible things, land or other property, or electronically stored information. The Civil Discovery Act authorizes the use of certain types of technology, as defined, in conducting discovery in a complex case. This bill would delete those provisions, and instead generally provide that when any method of discovery permits, compels, prevents, or limits the production, inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of documents or tangible things, the same method would also apply to electronically stored information. The Civil Discovery Act requires any documents produced in response to an inspection demand to be produced as they are kept in the usual course of business, or be organized and labeled to correspond with the categories in the demand. This bill would additionally make this provision applicable to the production of electronically stored information. The bill would also provide that if a party responding to a demand for production of electronically stored information objects to a specified form for producing the information, or if no form is specified in the demand, the responding party shall state in its response the form in which it intends to produce each type of information. In general, if a demand for production does not specify a form or forms for producing a type of electronically stored information, the responding party would be required to produce the information in the form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a form that is reasonably usable, but need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form. The Civil Discovery Act provides that a party or other persons and entities, as specified, may move for an order to protect or compel the production of any document or tangible thing under the deponent's control described in the deposition notice or deposition subpoena. Existing law authorizes the court, for good cause shown, to make any order, that justice requires, to protect any party or other persons or entities, as specified. This bill would provide that a party that moves for an order to protect or compel the production of electronically stored information on the basis that it is from a source that is not reasonably accessible because of the undue burden or expense also bears the burden of demonstrating that the information is from a source that is not reasonably accessible. If it is established that the electronically stored information is from a source that is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or expense, the court may nonetheless order discovery if the demanding party shows good cause, subject to specified restrictions in specified circumstances. Existing law requires the court to impose a monetary sanction, as specified, against any party or any attorney of a party for specified violations. This bill would generally provide that, notwithstanding the above provision, the court is not required to impose sanctions on a party or any attorney of a party for failure to provide electronically stored information that has been lost, damaged, altered, or overwritten as the result of the routine, good faith operation of an electronic information system.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 72, Statutes of 2012.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m.

  4. In Senate. Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.

  5. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 79. Noes 0. Page 5422.) Ordered to the Senate.

  6. Read second time. Ordered to consent calendar.

  7. From committee: Do pass. Ordered to consent calendar. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (June 19).

  8. Referred to Com. on JUD.

  9. In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.

  10. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 37. Noes 0. Page 3471.) Ordered to the Assembly.

  11. Read second time. Ordered to consent calendar.

  12. From committee: Do pass. Ordered to consent calendar. (Ayes 5. Noes 0. Page 3389.) (May 1).

  13. Set for hearing May 1.

  14. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  15. Referred to Com. on JUD.

  16. From printer. May be acted upon on or after April 8.

  17. Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

  • Committee on Judiciary · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

  • Committee on Judiciary

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

SB 1574 JUD. Consent Calendar Second Day

Passed 79 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 76001
Democratic 1000
Republican 2000
Total 79001
% of votes cast 99%0%0%1%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Gordon — Yea
Hagman — Yea
Garrick — Yea
Butler — Yea
Hill — Yea
Huber — Yea
Carter — Yea
John A. Pérez — Yea
Perea — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Chesbro — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Dickinson — Yea
Jeffries — Yea
Knight — Yea
Pan — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Cedillo — Yea
Logue — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Halderman — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Silva — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Valadao — Yea
Yamada — Yea
Campos — Yea
Allen — Yea
Feuer — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
Furutani — Yea
Fong — Yea
Gorell — Yea
Hall — Yea
Hayashi — Yea
Conway — Yea
Lara — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Morrell — Yea
Nestande — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Norby — Yea
Olsen — Yea
Swanson — Yea
Williams — Yea
Fletcher — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Beall — Yea
Block — Yea
Monning — Yea
Miller — Not Voting
Achadjian — Yea
Alejo — Yea
Blumenfield — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Brownley — Yea
Buchanan — Yea
Harkey — Yea
Huffman — Yea
Ma — Yea
Mansoor — Yea
Smyth — Yea
Solorio — Yea
Torres — Yea
Wagner — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Cook — Yea
Eng — Yea
Davis — Yea
Donnelly — Yea
Fuentes — Yea
Beth Gaines — Yea
Bill Berryhill — Yea
Bonnie Lowenthal — Yea
Roger Hernández — Yea
V. Manuel Pérez — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass, to Consent Calendar.

Passed 10 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 9000
Republican 1000
Total 10000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (10)
Member Party Vote
Gorell — Yea
Feuer — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Chesbro — Yea
Monning — Yea
Wagner — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Huber — Yea
Dickinson — Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Consent Calendar 2nd SB1574 Committee on Jud.

Passed 37 Yea · 0 Nay · 3 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 34003
Republican 1000
Democratic 2000
Total 37003
% of votes cast 93%0%0%8%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Yee — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Harman — Yea
Lieu — Yea
Walters — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
De León — Yea
Negrete McLeod — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Cannella — Not Voting
Evans — Yea
Runner — Not Voting
Fuller — Yea
Corbett — Yea
Anderson — Yea
Correa — Yea
Dutton — Yea
Leno — Yea
Pavley — Yea
Simitian — Yea
Vargas — Yea
Wright — Yea
Alquist — Yea
Blakeslee — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Huff — Yea
Kehoe — Yea
Liu — Yea
Price — Yea
Steinberg — Yea
Wyland — Not Voting
Emmerson — Yea
DeSaulnier — Yea
Beth Gaines — Yea
Bill Berryhill — Yea
La Malfa — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

civil-rights technology
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does SB 1574 do?
Existing law provides procedures for the production of evidence by subpoena. Existing law provides that a subpoena may require a witness to bring any books, documents, or other things under the witness's control that he or she is bound by law to produce in evidence. This bill would include electronically stored information among the things under a witness's control that the witness would be bound by law to produce pursuant to a subpoena. The bill would provide procedures for objecting to the specified form or forms of producing the electronically stored information requested by the subpoena. The Civil Discovery Act authorizes a party to a civil action to obtain discovery, as specified, by inspecting documents, tangible things, and land or other property in the possession of any other party to the action. The act defines "electronically stored information" as information that is stored in an electronic medium. This bill would expand the scope of discovery described above to include electronically stored information. The bill would establish procedures for a person to obtain discovery of electronically stored information, in addition to documents, tangible things, and land or other property in the possession of any other party to the action. The bill would also permit discovery by the means of copying, testing, or sampling, in addition to inspection of documents, tangible things, land or other property, or electronically stored information. The Civil Discovery Act authorizes the use of certain types of technology, as defined, in conducting discovery in a complex case. This bill would delete those provisions, and instead generally provide that when any method of discovery permits, compels, prevents, or limits the production, inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of documents or tangible things, the same method would also apply to electronically stored information. The Civil Discovery Act requires any documents produced in response to an inspection demand to be produced as they are kept in the usual course of business, or be organized and labeled to correspond with the categories in the demand. This bill would additionally make this provision applicable to the production of electronically stored information. The bill would also provide that if a party responding to a demand for production of electronically stored information objects to a specified form for producing the information, or if no form is specified in the demand, the responding party shall state in its response the form in which it intends to produce each type of information. In general, if a demand for production does not specify a form or forms for producing a type of electronically stored information, the responding party would be required to produce the information in the form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a form that is reasonably usable, but need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form. The Civil Discovery Act provides that a party or other persons and entities, as specified, may move for an order to protect or compel the production of any document or tangible thing under the deponent's control described in the deposition notice or deposition subpoena. Existing law authorizes the court, for good cause shown, to make any order, that justice requires, to protect any party or other persons or entities, as specified. This bill would provide that a party that moves for an order to protect or compel the production of electronically stored information on the basis that it is from a source that is not reasonably accessible because of the undue burden or expense also bears the burden of demonstrating that the information is from a source that is not reasonably accessible. If it is established that the electronically stored information is from a source that is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or expense, the court may nonetheless order discovery if the demanding party shows good cause, subject to specified restrictions in specified circumstances. Existing law requires the court to impose a monetary sanction, as specified, against any party or any attorney of a party for specified violations. This bill would generally provide that, notwithstanding the above provision, the court is not required to impose sanctions on a party or any attorney of a party for failure to provide electronically stored information that has been lost, damaged, altered, or overwritten as the result of the routine, good faith operation of an electronic information system.
Who sponsors SB 1574?
SB 1574 is sponsored by Committee on Judiciary.
What is the current status of SB 1574?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced March 08, 2012. Enacted.
Where can I track SB 1574?
Track SB 1574 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 1574

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of SB 1574

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →