SENATE BILL 57 (RAINS – 1972)
CHAPTER 1014, STATUTES OF 1972
Some bill research does not include the Governor's file because at the time we researched the bill, the sitting Governor had not released his chaptered bill file. If the Governor's file is not included with this particular research, please contact our office (1-800-666-1917 or email@example.com) and we will be happy to provide this file at no charge if it is available.
As enacted Senate Bill 57 amended section 1985.3 of and repealed section 1987.4 of the Code of Civil Procedure and amended Evidence Code section 1563. (See Exhibit #1i) Senator Rains introduced Senate Bill 57 on December 5, 1980 at the request of California Association of Process Servers. (See Exhibits #1a and #3a)
Senate Bill 57 was assigned to the Senate Committee on Judiciary where policy issues raised by the bill were considered. (See Exhibit #3) The Senate amended the bill on March 12, April 29 and May 27, 1981. (See Exhibits #1b through #1d and #2) Senate Bill 57 was approved by the Senate and forwarded to the Assembly on June 4, 1981. (See Exhibit #2)
While in the Assembly, the Assembly Committee on Judiciary considered the policy issues raised by the bill. (See Exhibit #6) Four amendments were made to Senate Bill 57 by the Assembly, on August 11, August 24, September 4 and September 14, 1981. (See Exhibits #1e through #1h and #2) The Assembly thereafter approved the bill and returned it to the Senate. (See Exhibit #2)
The Senate approved the Assembly amendments and forwarded Senate Bill 57 to the Governor on September 18, 1981. Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. signed the bill on September 30, 1981, and it was recorded by the Secretary of State on that same date as Chapter 1014 of the Statutes of 1981. (See Exhibits #1i and #2)
The Senate Republican Caucus Third Reading analysis provides the following digest of Senate Bill 57 as it was last amended on September 14, 1981:
This bill revises several current procedures dealing with business records subpoenas. Specifically, the bill provides that any non-party’s reasonable costs for producing all business records could be charged against the party serving the subpoena duces tecum.
(See Exhibit #9, page 1)