BILL ANALYSIS C.S.H.B. 1943 By: Thompson 4-25-95 Committee Report (Substituted) BACKGROUND House Bill 887, passed last session, changed the fees a witness, in a civil proceeding, is entitled to for responding to a subpoena to appear in court. The fee was changed from a dollar a day and mileage to simply $10 per day. This bill was intended to reflect the increased cost of parking and other costs involved in appearing to testify before a court. However it has been a long standing question over whether a subpoena to the custodian of records for a document required the former $1 fee. Since the amount in question was only $1 per subpoena, companies processing subpoena for documents routinely paid the $1. However now that the witness fee is $10, paying this fee on subpoenaed documents has become rather burdensome. PURPOSE The purpose of this bill is to establish a $1 fee for the production or certification of documents in accordance with a subpoena, request for production, or other instrument issued under the authority of a tribunal. RULEMAKING AUTHORITY It is the opinion of this committee that this bill does not grant any additional rulemaking authority to any state official, agency, department, or institution. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS SECTION 1. Amends Subchapter A, Chapter 22, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, by adding Section 22.004 as follows: Sec. 22.004. FEE FOR PRODUCTION OR CERTIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS. (a) Entitles the custodian of a record who receives a request for the production or certification of a record in accordance with a subpoena, request for production, or other instrument issued under the authority of a tribunal to a fee of $1 for the production or certification of the record. Provides if more than one record is required in a single subpoena the custodian is entitled to only one fee. (b) Provides that the custodian of a record who produces or certifies a record, who is not required to appear, in court is not entitled to a witness fee under Section 22.001 (the $10 witness fee). (c) Provides that the party who requests the record shall pay the fee at the time the subpoena, request or other instrument is served. (d) Provides that the fee required by this section must be taxed in the bill of costs as other costs. (e) Provides that the fee required by this section is in addition to any other fee imposed by law for the production or certification of a record. SECTION 2. Emergency Clause - Effective immediately. COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL TO SUBSTITUTE CSHB 1943 makes changes in the original bill that clarify or correct language in the original. In Section 1 of the bill, "summons for the production of a document" is changed to read "receives a request for the production or certification of a record in accordance with a subpoena, request for production, or other instrument issued under the authority of a tribunal". Also in Section 1 "production of the record and the deposition, affidavit, or certification" is amended to read "production or certification of the record" and "production of the record" is changed to read "production or certification of the record". A new subsection (e) is added to Sec. 22.004, that provides that the fee required by this section is in addition to any other fee imposed by law for the production or certification of a record. SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE ACTION House Bill 1943 was considered by the Committee on Civil Practices in a public hearing on March 29, 1995. The following people testified in support of the bill: Bill Carroll, representing the Texas Court Reporters Association. No one testified in opposition to or neutrally on the bill. The bill was left pending. H.B. 1943 was considered by the Committee on Civil Practices in a public hearing on April 19, 1995. The bill was reported favorably, as substituted, with the recommendation that it do pass and be printed, by a record vote of six ayes, zero nays, zero pnv and three absents. The committee held a formal meeting on April 24, 1995, to reconsider H.B. 1943. The motion to reconsider the vote to report H.B. 1943 was approved without objection. The committee considered a complete substitute for the bill. The substitute was adopted without objection. The bill was reported favorably, as substituted, with the recommendation that it do pass, be printed and be sent to the Committee on Local Consent Calendars, by a record vote of eight ayes, zero nays, zero pnv and one absent.