AB 711 amends Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040 to add a narrow but consequential disclosure requirement to meet-and-confer declarations filed in support of motions. The declaration must indicate whether the parties have met and conferred — including by electronic communication — about retaining a certified shorthand reporter to record the motion hearing.
This change is procedural rather than substantive: it does not create a new right to a reporter or change who pays for one, but it puts the issue squarely into the prehearing logistics that counsel must address. For litigators, court administrators, and certified shorthand reporters, the amendment creates a new, documentable step in motion practice that can surface disputes about record preservation earlier in a case.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires meet-and-confer declarations supporting motions to state whether the parties discussed retaining a certified shorthand reporter for the hearing. It specifies that those discussions may occur through electronic communications.
Who It Affects
Civil litigants and their counsel in California courts must include the new disclosure in meet-and-confer declarations; court reporters and court administrators will see the issue raised more often in prehearing filings. The rule applies to any motion that already requires a meet-and-confer declaration under section 2016.040.
Why It Matters
By forcing early, documented consideration of a hearing record, the amendment can reduce surprise disputes about whether a reporter was requested or needed and make it easier to preserve an accurate record of hearings, especially in remote or hybrid proceedings.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 711 adds a single, focused sentence to the existing meet-and-confer declaration framework in section 2016.040. When a party files a declaration saying it has made reasonable and good-faith efforts to resolve the issues raised by a motion, the declaration must now also say whether the parties met and conferred about hiring a certified shorthand reporter to report the motion hearing.
The statute explicitly recognizes electronic communications — email, videoconference, or other remote exchanges — as a permissible means of meeting and conferring on this topic.
The amendment does not itself require that a certified shorthand reporter be retained, nor does it create a new entitlement to a recorded hearing or change fee-shifting rules. Instead, it documents whether the parties considered reporter retention before the hearing.
That documentation can be used in later disputes over whether an accurate record was available or whether a party unreasonably declined to arrange for a reporter.Practically, counsel will include a short addendum in the standard meet-and-confer declaration stating either that they discussed reporter retention (and by what means) or that they did not. Courts may treat that statement as evidence of whether parties cooperated on preserving the record, and it could inform decisions about ordering a reporter, allocating reporter fees, or permitting later efforts to reconstruct the record.
Because the provision leaves the ultimate decision to courts and parties, its main effect is procedural transparency rather than a substantive shift in access to court reporting services.
The Five Things You Need to Know
AB 711 amends Code of Civil Procedure §2016.040 to add a requirement to the meet-and-confer declaration accompanying motions.
The declaration must state whether the parties have met and conferred — including by electronic communication — about retaining a certified shorthand reporter to report the hearing on the motion.
The bill does not create a right to a certified shorthand reporter, does not change fee allocation rules, and expressly notes that this subdivision does not prevent the retention of a reporter.
The new disclosure applies to any motion already subject to the meet-and-confer declaration under §2016.040; it is a filing requirement tied to existing motion practice.
AB 711 does not add penalties, a new enforcement mechanism, or a predefined consequence for failing to include the disclosure; compliance and any remedial actions remain within the court's discretion.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Existing meet-and-confer good-faith showing (unchanged)
Subdivision (a) remains the gatekeeper: a moving party must show facts demonstrating a reasonable and good-faith attempt to informally resolve each issue presented by the motion. That baseline still governs whether the court will consider the motion, and AB 711 does not alter that substantive standard or impose additional proof requirements for the meet-and-confer effort itself.
New reporter-retention disclosure in the declaration
Subdivision (b) is the operative change. It requires the declaration to include whether the parties have met and conferred regarding retention of a certified shorthand reporter for the hearing, and clarifies that an electronic communication counts as meeting and conferring. Practically, this creates a discrete line-item in the declaration where counsel must affirmatively record that the topic was discussed (or not). The provision focuses on disclosure, not on mandating reporter use.
Non-preclusive clause preserving reporter retention
The added sentence — 'This subdivision does not prevent the retention of a certified shorthand reporter' — confirms that the disclosure requirement cannot be read to bar hiring a reporter. That limits an overly formal reading of the declaration as either a waiver or a precondition: courts and parties retain the option to secure a reporter irrespective of what the declaration states.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Parties who need an accurate hearing record: The disclosure reduces surprises about whether a reporter was considered, making it easier to justify later requests for a reporter or reconstruction of a record.
- Certified shorthand reporters: The change formalizes consideration of their services in more proceedings and may increase opportunities where parties previously did not discuss reporter retention.
- Courts and judges: Judges receive clearer documentation about parties' prehearing cooperation on record preservation, which can streamline rulings on whether to order a reporter or allocate costs.
Who Bears the Cost
- Litigants and counsel: They must add a specific disclosure to meet-and-confer declarations and may need to spend time coordinating or documenting electronic discussions about reporters.
- Pro se litigants and resource-limited parties: Those with limited access to certified reporters or technology for electronic meet-and-confer communications may face practical difficulties raising or resolving the issue.
- Court staff and clerks: Courts may see an uptick in motions or inquiries about reporters and could need to process more follow-on requests about record preservation or fee allocation absent additional administrative resources.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between improving early, documented attention to preserving an accurate hearing record and imposing another procedural formality that may be honored only in form. The bill makes it easier to show whether parties discussed a reporter, but it does not mandate reporter access or resolve who pays — so it risks adding paperwork without consistently improving substantive access to recorded hearings.
The amendment's transparency goal leaves several implementation questions open. The statute requires only a statement that the parties have or have not met and conferred about hiring a certified shorthand reporter; it does not set a required level of detail (for example, who was asked, when, or what the response was).
That gap creates room for perfunctory, checkbox-style declarations that satisfy the letter of the law without meaningfully improving coordination between parties.
Access and equity concerns are real. The provision explicitly counts electronic communications as meeting and conferring, but it does not address disparities in access to certified shorthand reporters across regions or the potential cost burden of hiring a reporter.
Courts will still decide whether to order a reporter or shift fees, but absent more prescriptive rules, less-resourced parties may struggle to secure or document reporter arrangements. Finally, because the bill does not create enforcement mechanisms or sanctions, courts must interpret and weigh these declarations when disputes later arise — a discretionary standard that may produce uneven outcomes across judges and counties.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.