Civil actions.

(1) Existing law requires a trial judge to examine prospective jurors, and, upon completion of the judge's examination, grants counsel for each party the right to examine, by oral and direct questioning, any prospective juror in order to enable counsel to intelligently exercise peremptory challenges and challenges for cause. Existing law requires the scope of examination conducted by counsel to be within the reasonable limits prescribed by the trial judge and prohibits the imposition of unreasonable or arbitrary time limits on the examination. This bill would specify that this prohibition applies to all cases. The bill would provide that the trial judge should allow a brief opening statement by counsel for each party prior to the commencement of the oral questioning phase of the voir dire process. The bill would prohibit the trial judge from establishing a blanket policy of a time limit for voir dire, and would provide that the parties should be given reasonable time to evaluate the responses to any written questionnaires, if used, before oral questioning commences. The bill also would provide that the judge in civil trials should provide the parties with both the alphabetical list and the list of prospective jurors in the order in which they will be called. (2) Existing law authorizes the trial court, in its discretion, in any civil action where after trial by jury an order granting a new trial limited to the issue of damages would be proper, to make a conditional order granting a new trial. If the ground for granting a new trial is inadequate damages, the order granting the new trial may be subject to the condition that the motion for a new trial is denied if the party against whom the verdict has been rendered consents to an increased verdict, as specified. If the ground for granting a new trial is excessive damages, the order granting the new trial may be subject to the condition that the motion for a new trial is denied if the party in whose favor the verdict has been rendered consents to a reduction of the verdict, as specified. This bill would provide that the deadline for acceptance or rejection of the addition or reduction of damages is 30 days from the date the conditional order is served by the clerk of the court, if a deadline is not set forth in the conditional order. The bill would provide that failure to respond to the order shall be deemed a rejection of the addition or reduction of damages, and a new trial limited to the issue of damages shall be granted automatically. The bill would require a party filing and serving an acceptance of a conditionally ordered addition or reduction of damages to concurrently serve and submit to the court a proposed amended judgment reflecting the modified judgment amount, as well as any other uncontested judgment awards. The bill would also make technical changes. (3) Existing law provides that the prevailing party, as defined, is generally entitled to recover specified costs in an action or proceeding and lists the items that are recoverable costs. This bill would add court interpreter fees to those costs that may be recovered, when the court has authorized a court interpreter for an indigent person, as specified.