Subpoenas issued by courts in another state or county (a foreign subpoena) may be enforced in California under the Interstate and International Depositions and Discovery Act. (Code Civ. Proc. §2029.100 et seq.; see also Rutter Guide, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial (June 2018 Update) Ch. 8E-7, §8:620.20.) The Interstate and International Depositions and Discovery Act allows an out-of-state party to serve a subpoena on a third party in California. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2029.300.)
“Pursuant to the Interstate and International Depositions and Discovery Act, a party to a proceeding in a foreign jurisdiction may obtain discovery in California by retaining a local attorney to issue a subpoena.” (Digital Music News, LLC v. Super. Ct. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216, 223, citing Code Civ. Proc., § 2029.350, disapproved on another ground in Williams v. Super. Ct. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557, fn. 8.) Additionally, a party may take a foreign subpoena to the clerk of the superior court in the county in which discovery is to be conducted and request that the clerk issue a local subpoena. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2029.300(a).)
There is no reciprocity stated in the Law Revision Commission Comments that follow Section 2029.600. The Comment does not represent that the statute was designed to protect courts and citizens of other states. This may be inferred by California's acceptance of the Interstate and International Depositions and Discovery Act, but it is not explicitly stated in the Comment.
“If a dispute arises relating to the subpoena, any party may petition the superior court where the discovery is to be conducted for a protective order or an order enforcing, quashing, or modifying the subpoena.” (Digital Music News, supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at p. 223, citing Code Civ. Proc., § 2029.600.) Although a party proceeds by filing a petition under Code of Civil Procedure section 2029.600, the resolution of the merits of the dispute “is nevertheless governed by California’s Civil Discovery Act, section 2016.010 et seq.” (Digital Music News, supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at pp. 223–24, (citing Code Civ. Proc., § 2029.500).)
A California court has the jurisdiction and authority to quash, and issue a protective order, as to deposition notices and attendant requests for production of documents that were commissioned by a California court but actually issued by other states where the depositions would take place. Section 2029.60 states that such motions "may" be filed in the superior court in the county in which the discovery is to be conducted and "if so filed" shall comply with the applicable rules or statutes of this state. The language is permissive or discretionary, and not mandatory. (Parks v. Superior Court (1971) 19 Cal. App. 3d 188, 191.)
The Law Revision Commission Comments following Section 2029.600 make clear that the statute was intended to protect the rights and interests of California citizens, the subjects of discovery, where the discovery occurs in California, but the action is filed out of state.
The design of Section 2029.600 is exemplified by Digital Music News LLC. v. Escape Media Group, LLC (real party in interest), where the underlying lawsuit was filed in New York and involved allegations that the Defendant internet music provider stole music from the Plaintiff music company. (Digital Music News LLC. v. Escape Media Group, LLC (real party in interest) (2014) 226 Cal. App. 4th 216.) The subject of the discovery was not a party and not in New York, but a California Internet Media company that published a comment about the controversy from an anonymous "inside" source corroborating Plaintiff's core allegations. Defendant sought and obtained a subpoena from the California Court under Code of Civil Procedure Section 2029 requiring the California Media Company to reveal the identity of the person making the comment. The Media Company both opposed the subpoena in the California Court and appealed the issuing of the subpoena on various First Amendment and privacy grounds to the California Appellate Court. The statute enabled the California Court to provide protection to its citizen, the California subject of discovery. And it was the California real party in interest, the target of the subpoena, who independently availed itself of the protections of Section 2029 by opposing the subpoena all the way through the appellate court process. There is no mention that the New York Plaintiff was involved in the controversy whatsoever.
PETITION TO COMPLETE ENFORCEMENT OF OUT OF STATE SUBPOENA Pursuant to CCP §2029.350, “if a party to a proceeding pending in a foreign jurisdiction retains an attorney licensed to practice in this state, who is an active member of the State Bar, and that attorney receives the original or a true and correct copy of a foreign subpoena, the attorney may issue a subpoena [provided that the subpoena] (1) incorporate the terms used in the foreign subpoena; (2) [include] the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of
Mar 13, 2020
Orange County, CA
In Digital, a foreign subpoena from New York was brought to California, and the parties moved to compel that subpoena in California. Defendants assert that because the dispute was brought in the state where the discovery was sought, and not the state where the subpoena was issued, that the same should hold true here.
Jan 07, 2020
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
“[I]f a party to a proceeding pending in a foreign jurisdiction retains an attorney licensed to practice in this state, who is an active member of the State Bar, and that attorney receives the original or a true and correct copy of a foreign subpoena, the attorney may issue a subpoena.” (Code Civ. Proc., §2029.350, subd. (a).) Under this authority, Acacia’s counsel in California issued the Subpoena at issue on August 15, 2018 after receiving the foreign (Massachusetts) subpoena.
Dec 20, 2019
Presiding
Santa Clara County, CA
In Digital, a foreign subpoena from New York was brought to California, and the parties moved to compel that subpoena in California. Defendants assert that because the dispute was brought in the state where the discovery was sought, and not the state where the subpoena was issued, that the same should hold true here.
Nov 05, 2019
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
Additionally, a party may take a foreign subpoena to the clerk of the superior court in the county in which discovery is to be conducted and request that the clerk issue a local subpoena.4 (Code Civ. Proc., § 2029.300, subd. (a).) “If a dispute arises relating to the subpoena, any party may petition the superior court where the discovery is to be conducted for a protective order or an order enforcing, quashing, or modifying the subpoena.”
Oct 10, 2019
Santa Clara County, CA
Plaintiffs move to tax deposition costs as follows: Filing fees to New Jersey Superior Court for the Issuance of a Foreign Subpoena to Compel the Attendance of a Third-Party Deponent Who Resides in New Jersey for R. Mahan ($50.00). DENY Although this not a deposition cost, it is a filing fee which will be allowed. Per the Buese Decl., ¶ 68 and Exh. 58, this is not a duplicate fee as the $50 fee paid on July 14, 2017.
Jun 26, 2019
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
Subpoenas issued by courts in another state or county (a foreign subpoena) may be enforced in California under the Interstate and International Depositions and Discovery Act. (CCP §2029.100 et seq.; see also Rutter Guide, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial (June 2018 Update) Ch. 8E-7, §8:620.20.)
Mar 29, 2019
Other
Intellectual Property
Los Angeles County, CA
Pursuant to CCP §2029.350, a California attorney may issue a subpoena for discovery in-state if “that attorney receives the original or a true and correct copy of a foreign subpoena” and the California subpoena fully incorporates “the terms used in the foreign subpoena.” In order to assure both conditions have been met, local counsel generally attaches a copy of the out-of-state subpoena and checks box 6.
Jan 18, 2019
Orange County, CA
Pursuant to CCP §2029.350, a California attorney may issue a subpoena for discovery in-state if “that attorney receives the original or a true and correct copy of a foreign subpoena” and the California subpoena fully incorporates “the terms used in the foreign subpoena.” In order to assure both conditions have been met, local counsel generally attaches a copy of the out-of-state subpoena and checks box 6.
Jan 18, 2019
Orange County, CA
Similarly, CCP section 2029.350(b)(1) requires that a subpoena issued under this section “shall incorporate the terms used in the foreign subpoena.” Box 4 is not checked in the subpoenas here. (See Exhs. A, B.) It is undisputable that the subpoenas do not incorporate the terms used in the Utah subpoenas. Further, CCP section 2025.22(a)(5) expressly mandates that a subpoena shall notify the deponent of any intention to videotape the deposition.
Dec 06, 2017
Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco
Los Angeles County, CA
If a party to an out-of-state legal proceeding retains a California lawyer and provides the lawyer with the original or a copy of the foreign subpoena, the California lawyer may issue a subpoena to a local resident without prior court approval. See CCP § 2029.350(a). The California deposition subpoena served on the Live Nation attaches the Wisconsin subpoena and was therefore properly issued against Live Nation. Second, the deposition subpoena’s document requests are proper under CC §1987.1.
Aug 25, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Nothing in CCP §2026.010(c) requires a copy of the foreign subpoena to be served on Plaintiff. CCP §2026.010(c) requires compliance with the laws of the state where the deposition is to occur. Plaintiff must challenge the subpoenas in the foreign courts, as Plaintiff is not challenging the substance (i.e. relevance, privacy, etc.). The foreign states should determine whether Defendant complied with those states’ procedures for obtaining the subpoenas.
Apr 10, 2017
Riverside County, CA
Although plaintiff has objected to defendant’s deposition subpoenas by citing the Interstate and International Depositions and Discovery Act, CCP §§ 2029.200-2029.900, that Act is inapplicable here because it provides a procedure for having a deposition subpoena issued in California based on a “foreign subpoena” issued by another state or foreign nation. Instead, the statute which governs the taking of discovery in another state in an action filed in California is CCP § 2026.010.
Feb 14, 2017
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
Los Angeles County, CA
In September 2016, NWSC served subpoenas to Person Under Foreign Subpoena (the "Challenged Subpoenas") on Philip Morris USA Inc. (PM USA) seeking deposition testimony and documents related to communications exchanged by PM USA with legislative representatives of the State of California concerning the legislative purpose and intent of California Senate Bill 822 (1999), referred to in this action as the "Directory Statute."
Dec 08, 2016
Collections
Collections
Sacramento County, CA
In September 2016, NWSC served subpoenas to Person Under Foreign Subpoena (the "Challenged Subpoenas") on Philip Morris USA Inc. (PM USA) seeking deposition testimony and documents related to communications exchanged by PM USA with legislative representatives of the State of California concerning the legislative purpose and intent of California Senate Bill 822 (1999), referred to in this action as the "Directory Statute."
Dec 08, 2016
Collections
Collections
Sacramento County, CA
In September 2016, NWSC served subpoenas to Person Under Foreign Subpoena (the "Challenged Subpoenas") on Philip Morris USA Inc. (PM USA) seeking deposition testimony and documents related to communications exchanged by PM USA with legislative representatives of the State of California concerning the legislative purpose and intent of California Senate Bill 822 (1999), referred to in this action as the "Directory Statute."
Dec 08, 2016
Collections
Collections
Sacramento County, CA
In September 2016, NWSC served subpoenas to Person Under Foreign Subpoena (the "Challenged Subpoenas") on Philip Morris USA Inc. (PM USA) seeking deposition testimony and documents related to communications exchanged by PM USA with legislative representatives of the State of California concerning the legislative purpose and intent of California Senate Bill 822 (1999), referred to in this action as the "Directory Statute."
Dec 08, 2016
Collections
Collections
Sacramento County, CA
In September 2016, NWSC served subpoenas to Person Under Foreign Subpoena (the "Challenged Subpoenas") on Philip Morris USA Inc. (PM USA) seeking deposition testimony and documents related to communications exchanged by PM USA with legislative representatives of the State of California concerning the legislative purpose and intent of California Senate Bill 822 (1999), referred to in this action as the "Directory Statute."
Dec 08, 2016
Collections
Collections
Sacramento County, CA
In September 2016, NWSC served subpoenas to Person Under Foreign Subpoena (the "Challenged Subpoenas") on Philip Morris USA Inc. (PM USA) seeking deposition testimony and documents related to communications exchanged by PM USA with legislative representatives of the State of California concerning the legislative purpose and intent of California Senate Bill 822 (1999), referred to in this action as the "Directory Statute."
Dec 08, 2016
Collections
Collections
Sacramento County, CA
The deposition subpoena must incorporate the terms used in the foreign subpoena and contain the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all counsel of record in the proceeding in which the subpoena relates and of any party not represented by counsel. MT R. Civ. Proc., Rule 28, subd. (c)(2)(C). The deposition subpoena must also state the title of the action, the out-of-state court in which the action is pending, and its case number, and the name of the Montana court that issued the subpoena. MT R. Civ.
Mar 27, 2015
Santa Barbara County, CA
Please wait a moment while we gather your results.
