Legislature(2017 - 2018)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/10/2017 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB54 | |
| HB77 | |
| HB104 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 77 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 104 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 54 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 104-REPEAL COLLECTION OF CIVIL LITIG. INFO
2:08:10 PM
CHAIR COGHILL announced the consideration of HB 104.
2:08:52 PM
LIZZIE KUBITZ, Staff, Representative Matt Claman, Alaska State
Legislature, introduced HB 104 on behalf of the sponsor,
speaking to the following prepared statement:
House Bill 104 eliminates the automatic reporting
information about civil case settlements currently
required by law. The bill follows the advice of the
Alaska Judicial Council, which has recommended that
the legislature eliminate this requirement.
To give some historical context: In 1997, responding
to public interest in tort reform and the work of the
Governor's Advisory Task Force on Civil Justice, the
legislature passed tort reform legislation. One part
of the legislation responded to the Task Force's
recommendation that the Alaska Judicial Council report
on closed civil cases, using data from forms completed
by attorneys and parties in the cases. Since then,
pursuant to statute, the Judicial Council has
collected data provided by attorneys and litigants and
has produced three reports. However, much more often
than not, attorneys and litigants have failed to
comply with the reporting requirement.
In its most recent report from November 2011, included
in your bill packets, the Alaska Judicial Council
reports that from January 2001 through December 2010,
88,873 cases were resolved in the Alaska Court system
that were subject to the reporting requirement.
Because each case had at least two parties, the
Council should have received 177,746 or more reports.
However, the Council only received 23,257 reports.
This represents 13 percent of the Council's
conservative estimate of the number of reports it
should have received.
The low rate of reporting is the reason the Council
has not issued a report since 2011. An analysis based
on 13 percent of potentially available data would not
be reliable. Eliminating the requirement has also
received support from attorneys and civil litigants,
as the reporting requirement is onerous for those who
follow it and unenforceable for those who don't.
The Alaska Judicial Council lacks the authority and
resources to enforce this outdated requirement and the
Council renews its recommendation that the legislature
eliminate it.
MS. KUBITZ offered to provide a sectional analysis, and noted
that Suzanne DiPietro from The Alaska Judicial Council was
available to answer questions.
CHAIR COGHILL asked for an explanation of "outdated" in this
context.
MS. KUBITZ offered her understanding that the Judicial Council's
efforts to encourage reporting achieved limited success. She
deferred further explanation to Ms. DiPietro.
CHAIR COGHILL asked Ms. DiPietro to answer the first question
and whether there is value in maintaining the requirement.
2:12:58 PM
SUZANNE DIPIETRO, Executive Director, Alaska Judicial Council,
Anchorage, Alaska, opined that the information on closed civil
cases is no longer of great value to the legislature. The
purpose for collecting the information was to inform the
legislature about the effect of tort reform and those effects
are well established. The Judicial Council does not receive
requests about the data it collects and its efforts to encourage
reporting initially were resource intensive and never achieved
anything close to 100 percent.
CHAIR COGHILL voiced support for the bill. He asked Ms. Kubitz
to go through the sectional analysis.
2:15:11 PM
MS. KUBITZ provided the following sectional analysis for HB 104:
Section 1. Repeals Rule 41(a)(3), Alaska Rules of
Civil Procedure and Rules 511 (c) and (e), Alaska
Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Section 2. Repeals AS 09.68.130, relating to
collection of settlement information by the Alaska
Judicial Council.
Section 3. Provides that the Act will only take effect
if sec. 1 of the Act receives the two-thirds majority
vote required by the Constitution of the State of
Alaska for a court rule change.
Section 4. Provides that the Act will take effect
immediately if it receives the two-thirds majority
vote under sec. 3 of the Act.
MS. KUBITZ said copies of the referenced Court Rules and Statute
are included in the bill packets.
2:16:19 PM
SENATOR MEYER asked why the bill didn't pass in previous years.
CHAIR COGHILL opined that it was a matter of timing and perhaps
personality.
SENATOR COSTELLO asked what will happen to the reports that the
Judicial Council has received.
MS. DIPIETRO explained that once the data is transferred to the
database the paper documents are disposed of correctly
considering that they are confidential documents. Should the
bill pass, any documents that have not been entered into the
database would be destroyed. The information already entered
will remain in the database.
2:18:13 PM
CHAIR COGHILL held HB 104 in committee for further consideration
with public testimony open.