Information Sheet on Fee Waiver of Superior Court Fees and Costs states that “If you ... want to sue someone ... and cannot afford to pay court fees and costs, you may not have to pay them in order to go them court” and it enumerates what fees may be waived, including fees of obtaining copies or filing a complaint, but it does not name the original printing of a complaint.
In case of extensive documentary evidence, a complaint may contain hundred of pages in digital format and may cost hundreds of dollars that a filer may not be able to afford.
I read about examples when printing costs are recoverable in court cases in California where attorney’s fees and courts fees (and costs) can be recovered which shows that the court recognizes the materiality of loss in those expenses, and don’t consider them a trifle or insignificant financial matter of prayed for in a complaint.
If the courts recognize the materiality of these costs, does that mean that a waiver of all court fees should include costs associated with printing court documents, for e.g., the complaint, the the summons, etc. The plain meaning of the rules, laws and regulations don’t read as if allowing for them as they typically discuss court fees and not costs. Copies can be obtained, but can you request the clerks’ office to print such basic documents of yours for you if you have them digitally?
Was this question or a substantially similar question decided and on what case or cases that are relevant in California superior courts?
In response to the comment: You are permitted to file with or e-serve electronically the court, but not the other party without their consent. Even proof of actual notice may be disregarded if service of process rules are not followed properly. Assume the other party is represented by an attorney who explicitly refuses to accept electronic service despite the encouragement and advisement of the court that all parties do so especially in light of COVID. There are exceptions when a party intentionally tries evading service, but in this case their argument is plausible: They are simply entitled to an almost absolute right to be properly served.
Please name a single court in the U.S. that does not have a printer or a superior court clerk’s office in the Bay Area that does not have a laser printer. Deferral is also not from the devil, that’s what courts do with investigators, appointed counsel in counsels who are not part of a public defender panel, etc.