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.
Aug 31, 2020
Placer County, CA
Aug 28, 2020
Placer County, CA
Aug 21, 2020
Placer County, CA
Jul 29, 2020
San Francisco County, CA
Feb 20, 2020
Sacramento County, CA
Jan 30, 2020
San Francisco County, CA
Jan 30, 2020
San Francisco County, CA
Jan 27, 2020
San Francisco County, CA
Jul 26, 2019
San Joaquin County, CA
Jun 19, 2019
San Joaquin County, CA
Jun 06, 2019
San Francisco County, CA
Mar 25, 2019
Sacramento County, CA
Mar 12, 2019
San Francisco County, CA
Mar 05, 2019
San Francisco County, CA
Feb 08, 2019
San Joaquin County, CA
Jan 31, 2019
San Francisco County, CA
Jan 31, 2019
San Francisco County, CA
Jan 10, 2019
Santa Clara County, CA
Dec 20, 2018
Santa Clara County, CA
Dec 20, 2018
Santa Clara County, CA
Dec 11, 2018
San Francisco County, CA
Dec 05, 2018
Santa Clara County, CA
Nov 27, 2018
San Francisco County, CA
Nov 27, 2018
San Francisco County, CA
Oct 29, 2018
Santa Clara County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.