Oregon House Bill HB2468

Oregon 2025 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/13/25
• Refer: 1/17/25

Caption

Relating to discovery.

Summary

HB 2468 would amend Oregon’s criminal discovery statutes to allow district attorneys to charge defendants or their lawyers a fee before providing discovery, so long as the fee is reasonably calculated to reimburse the government’s costs. The bill specifies that recoverable costs may include staff time spent reviewing, redacting, compiling, formatting, and preparing discovery, as well as physical media and overhead expenses tied to producing the materials. The measure also makes several clarifying and procedural changes to discovery law. It defines “disclose” for purposes of criminal discovery, preserves existing limits for child sexual abuse material, and expands/clarifies the categories of information prosecutors must provide, including exculpatory, mitigating, and impeachment material. It also requires earlier disclosure of such material, including before a guilty plea agreement is entered, and maintains special rules for DUII-related discovery, unrepresented defendants, and the protection of victim and witness personal identifiers.

Impact

The bill would directly amend ORS 135.805 and 135.815, changing how criminal discovery is handled in Oregon courts. Its most significant legal effect is to authorize prosecutors to impose cost-recovery fees before turning over discovery, which could shift some administrative and copying/production expenses from district attorneys’ offices to criminal defendants and defense counsel. It would also reinforce and reorganize existing disclosure obligations, including Brady-type exculpatory disclosure, while preserving confidentiality protections for sensitive personal information and certain child sexual abuse materials.

Sentiment

No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to assess from the available materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears designed to respond to prosecutor and county concerns about the cost of producing discovery, while also preserving core defense disclosure rights. The absence of recorded votes or discussion means support and opposition cannot be reliably characterized from the provided record.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely the new authority for district attorneys to charge discovery fees. Supporters, including county prosecutors, may view the fee as a way to reimburse local governments for labor, copying, storage, and redaction costs associated with modern discovery production. Opponents would likely argue that charging defendants for discovery could burden the defense, especially in lower-income cases, and could create barriers to timely access to evidence. A secondary area of concern is the balance between expanded disclosure obligations and the bill’s limits on personal identifiers, victim privacy, and law-enforcement personnel files.