Loading…
The clerk directs courtroom staff to operate electronic recording equipment in any department when the presiding judicial officer finds that a party wishes to have a verbatim transcript possible, no official court reporter is reasonably available, and the requesting party cannot secure a private reporter because of a reasonable inability to pay; the court may impose reasonable fees as the law permits, taking ability to pay into account. Replaces and rescinds General Directive 2026-24 in light of Family Violence Appellate Project v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (Aug. 10, 2026). Issued September 9, 2026; expires December 31, 2026.
California > First Appellate District > Alameda County > Superior Court of California, County of Alameda
[Seal of the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda] CHAMBERS OF MICHAEL M. MARKMAN Presiding Judge Department 1 René C. Davidson Courthouse 1225 Fallon Street Oakland, CA 94612 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA GENERAL DIRECTIVE BY THE PRESIDING JUDGE DIRECTIVE NO: 2026-24A SUBJECT: RE OPERATION OF ELECTRONIC RECORDING EQUIPMENT IN THE ABSENCE OF AN AVAILABLE COURT REPORTER The Alameda County Superior Court (“the Court”) is deeply committed to ensuring access to justice for all. In 2018, the California Supreme Court warned that “the absence of a court reporter at trial court proceedings and the resulting lack of a verbatim record of such proceedings will frequently be fatal to a litigant’s ability to [appeal].” (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608 (Jameson).) On August 10, 2026, the California Supreme Court granted a writ of mandate that provides the named superior courts in the case “to provide indigent litigants, upon request, with meaningful access in all cases to an official verbatim record of proceedings, including by means of electronic recording if an official reporter or official reporter pro tempore is unavailable,” notwithstanding the language in Government Code section 69957. (Family Violence Appellate Project v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (Aug. 10, 2026) 2026 WL 2291541, at *14, 2026 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6882.) The Court’s General Directive 2026-24 discusses the ongoing unavailability of official court reporters and reporters pro tempore and the importance of the availability of a record, particularly when liberty and other Constitutional issues are implicated, in connection with the court’s practice of making electronic recordings available in appropriate cases. In light of the Family Violence Appellate Project decision, the Court amends the order set out in General Directive 2026-24 by replacing it with the following Order. The Presiding Judge hereby ORDERS the Clerk of Court to direct courtroom staff to operate the electronic recording equipment in any department as directed by the judicial officer presiding in such department when that judicial officer finds that: (1) one or more parties wishes to have the possibility of creating a verbatim transcript of the proceedings; (2) no official court-employed court reporter is reasonably available to report the proceeding; and (3) the party requesting a verbatim record has been unable to secure the presence of a private court reporter to report the proceeding because that party has a reasonable inability to pay for a private reporter. The Court may impose reasonable fees, to the extent permitted by law and after taking into account the ability to pay, when such order is made. THIS ORDER IS EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY AND WILL REMAIN IN EFFECT UNTIL OTHERWISE ORDERED BY THE PRESIDING JUDGE. General Directive 2026-24 is hereby rescinded. This directive shall expire on December 31, 2026. Issued: September 9, 2026 [signature] Michael M. Markman, Presiding Judge Superior Court of California, County of Alameda
[Seal of the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda] CHAMBERS OF MICHAEL M. MARKMAN Presiding Judge Department 1 René C. Davidson Courthouse 1225 Fallon Street Oakland, CA 94612 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA GENERAL DIRECTIVE BY THE PRESIDING JUDGE DIRECTIVE NO: 2026-24A SUBJECT: RE OPERATION OF ELECTRONIC RECORDING EQUIPMENT IN THE ABSENCE OF AN AVAILABLE COURT REPORTER
Reviewer note: Composed 2026-09-28 (California T3 Alameda build 2026-09-28) from BenchPath custody ca/t3/ca-alameda/gd/2026-24a-re-operation-electronic-recording-equipment-specified-proceedings-involving-fundamental-liberty-interests-absence-available-court-reporter.pdf (442668 bytes, sha256 7ce67c002266367f7b509064a78eed5ba653cad80af5515c3c70a5f8d4918c6f; 2 pages) - the court's own posted PDF, a scan under an OCR text layer that was not relied on: transcribed from the rendered page images, every page read against the image; a machine reading (RapidOCR) was used only as a second reader for a word-level diff, every difference classified; every quotation mark, apostrophe, dash and bracket checked in full-resolution crops; the court seal and the signature are bracketed. The court's directive index lists this directive as “Operation of Electronic Recording Equipment for Specified Proceedings Involving Fundamental Liberty Interests in the Absence of an Available Court Reporter”; the directive's own subject line reads “RE OPERATION OF ELECTRONIC RECORDING EQUIPMENT IN THE ABSENCE OF AN AVAILABLE COURT REPORTER”. Case names printed in italics are not italicized here; citations are verbatim. Printed irregularities are kept as printed.
9 verbatim requirements from 4th Circuit Administrative Order 1997-10.
6 verbatim requirements from 4th Circuit Administrative Order 1997-13.