Court records: preservation guidelines.
Summary
Existing law provides that court records may be preserved in any form, including electronic forms, as specified. This bill would additionally authorize courts to create and maintain records in electronic forms, as specified, and would authorize the signing or verification of trial court documents using a computer or other technology. Existing law requires that court records be preserved in accordance with standards or guidelines adopted by the American National Standards Institute or the Association for Information and Image Management. This bill would delete these provisions and would instead require the Judicial Council to adopt rules to establish the standards and guidelines for the creation, maintenance, reproduction, and preservation of court records, and would require that these standards and guidelines reflect industry standards for each medium used, ensure the accuracy and preserve the integrity of the records, and ensure that the public can access and reproduce the records. The bill would further require that court records be preserved in accordance with these rules. Under existing law, "retain permanently" means that the original court record shall never be transferred or destroyed. This bill would revise this definition to mean that the record shall be maintained in accordance with the rules established by the Judicial Council.
Bill status
signed
all 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2010
Committee Review
Aug 2010
Assembly Passage
Apr 2010
Senate Passage
Aug 2010
Signed into Law
Aug 2010
Introduced Feb 16, 2010
Signed Aug 23, 2010
Floor votes · Senate Aug 5, 2010 · Assembly Apr 22, 2010
How they voted
32–0
Passed · 5 other
Total votes 37
Aug 5, 2010
D
Democratic25
84% Yea
R
Republican12
91% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
23
Key actions
8
Committee
8
Amendments
3
Aug 23, 2010
Signed into law
Approved by the Governor.
legislature
Aug 5, 2010
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (32-0-5)
senate
Aug 2, 2010
Upper · Passed
From committee: Be placed on second reading file pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8 and to Consent Calendar.
upper
Jun 30, 2010
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on APPR with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. Re-referred. (Ayes 4. Noes 0.) (June 29).
upper
May 6, 2010
Committee
Referred to Com. on JUD.
upper
Apr 22, 2010
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (65-0-4)
assembly
Apr 14, 2010
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. To Consent Calendar. (April 14).
lower
Apr 7, 2010
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
Apr 6, 2010
Lower · Passed
Read second time and amended.
lower
Apr 5, 2010
Introduced
From committee: Amend, do pass as amended, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (March 23).
lower
Mar 22, 2010
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
lower
Mar 18, 2010
Introduced
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on JUD. Read second time and amended.
lower
Mar 4, 2010
Committee
Referred to Com. on JUD.
lower
Feb 17, 2010
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 19.
lower
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
NE
Noreen Evans
DDemocratic
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about AB 1926
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand AB 1926. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline