Motion for Issuance of Out of State Deposition in California

HEARING ON MOTION TO TAKE DEPOSITION PURSUANT TO CCP 2026.010 FILED BY DANA KUEHR * TENTATIVE RULING: * Plaintiff’s motion for commission to take out-of-state deposition is granted.

On June 25, 2020, Defendant Farhat filed a motion for issuance of commission to take an out-of-state deposition pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2026.010, subdivision (f). On June 26, 2020, the Court scheduled Defendant Farhat’s motion to be heard on November 2, 2020. Trial is scheduled for January 26, 2021. PARTY’S REQUESTS Defendant Farhat asks the Court to issue a commission to take an out-of-state deposition for Defendant Farhat to obtain records from Gregory DiLorenzo and St.

Defendant seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to sign an authorization for release of records and a commission for an out-of-state deposition. This court does not have express authority under the Discovery Act to compel a plaintiff to sign an authorization for release of records. Case law on this particular issue is limited. For example, in Miranda v. 21st Century Ins.

CASE NO: BC644258 [TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S TWO MOTIONS TO COMMISSION ALBERT HOLLAN AS COMMISSIONER FOR ISSUANCE OF OUT-OF-STATE DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS Dept. 92 1:30 p.m. March 13, 2018 Defendant Toy Russell Fields, III, has attempted to obtain agreements from Plaintiffs Jennifer Tryer and Jonathan Tryer to voluntarily produce their out-of-state medical records. Plaintiffs have not responded to Defendant’s request.

Application for Out-of-State Deposition Subpoena – On 1/24/17, Plaintiff filed this ex parte application requesting an out-of-state deposition subpoena (CCP § 2026.010) to seek records from a data company compiling credit card transactions for Defendants. See Young Decl. ¶¶ 5-6. Plaintiff submits that the data company has objected to the authority of the arbitration panel to issue a subpoena (id. ¶ 7, Ex.

The party noticing a third-party out-of-state deposition must follow local law to ensure that the deponent can be compelled to attend and testify. (§ 2026.010, subd. (c).) Global argues that Florida law requires that a deposition subpoena be issued by the clerk of the Florida court upon a California commission in order to compel attendance at a deposition. (Fla. Rules Civ.Proc., rule 1.410(g).)

However, in the interest of judicial economy, the Court considers Plaintiff’s motion pursuant to the relevant statute, CCP §2026.010. The Court has the authority to issue a commission authorizing Defendants’ depositions in another state. (CCP §2026.010(f).) Further, if a deponent is a party to the action, the service of the deposition notice is effective to compel that deponent to attend and to testify. (CCP §2026.010(b).)

However, CCP § 2026.010 allows parties to depose party-affiliated witnesses, including employees of parties, who reside out of state. ( See CCP § 2026.010(a) [Any party may obtain discovery by taking an oral deposition&in another state of the United States&.].)

For California, the only substantive procedure is that she contends that she was not served with a copy of the foreign subpoenas as required under CCP §2026.010(c) and Rosen v. Superior Court (1966) 244 Cal.App.2d 586, 591. 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.

. § 2026.010, yet that section is directly applicable to Plaintiff’s attempt to depose a party who resides in another state. C.C.P. § 2026.010 expressly provides that, for parties, a deposition notice alone may be sufficient and that a commission is not required. However, Plaintiff has not provided a copy of the subject deposition notice or the “place in the state” where the deposition is to occur. C.C.P. 2026.010(b).

However, CCP § 2026.010(c) states that “[i]f the deponent is not a party to the action …, a party serving a deposition notice under this section shall use any process and procedures required and available under the laws of the state … where the deposition is to be taken to compel the deponent to attend and to testify, as well as to produce any document, [or] electronically stored information[.]” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2026.010(c) [emphasis added].)

CCP §2026.010 governs depositions of out-of-state persons. §2026.010(f) permits the Court to issue a commission authorizing the deposition in another state. Specifically, it provides, “On request, the clerk of the court shall issue a commission authorizing the deposition in another state or place.

In addition, because there is no dispute Humphrey resides in Utah, Plaintiff must also comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2026.010, subdivision (c). Plaintiff did not show compliance with CCP section 2026.010. No sanctions. Plaintiff shall give notice.

SEE CCP 2026.010(f).

Proc. §2026.010(f).) A commission, of course, authorizes a designated individual to take the deposition of a named witness. ( Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Superior Court (1973) 33 Cal.App.3d 503, 506.) Based on Code of Civil Procedure §2026.010(f), Petitioner was not required to make any showing to obtain a commission.

See CCP 2026.010.

Proc., 2026.010, subd. (b).) Accordingly, the deposition notice served to compel the deposition of Mr. Carey, a non-party and out of state resident, was procedurally improper pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. 2026.010, subd. (c). If a hearing is requested, it will be on February 25, 2021 at 9:30 a.m. In light of the current public health situation, all attorneys may only appear telephonically. Telephone appearances must be arranged through Court Call by calling 1-888-88-COURT.

(CCP § 2026.010(c)) To deny all requests for sanctions. Explanation: CCP § 2026.010. Depositions in another state of the United States provides in relevant part: (a) Any party may obtain discovery by taking an oral deposition, as described in Section 2025.010, in another state of the United States, or in a territory or an insular possession subject to its jurisdiction.

Plaintiff's motion to quash the deposition subpoena for records from Sierra Health and Life Insurance Company, Inc. is granted without prejudice to the possibility that Defendant may issue a subpoena that complies with Code of Civil Procedure § 2026.010(f) and/or any other requirements of the Interstate and International Depositions and Discovery Act. See Code Civ. Proc. § 2029.100, et seq.; N.R.S 53.100, et seq.

. § 2026.010 nor Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure 45.01(d) in issuing a deposition subpoena to Mr. Gindorff as a non-party witness at a Minnesota address. Thus, the motion to quash is granted. Assuming that Mr. Gindorff continues to voluntarily consent to be deposed, the parties may meet and confer regarding the scheduling of a mutually agreeable date and time for Mr. Gindorff’s deposition. 2.

. § 2026.010(a). "If a deponent is a party to the action, or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, the service of the deposition notice is effective to compel the deponent to attend and to testify, as well as to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling." Code Civ. Proc. § 2026.010(b).

Proc., § 2026.010.) No later than December 1, 2019, Plaintiffs shall submit a proposed Commission To Take Deposition Outside California, using Judicial Council form DISC-030. Plaintiffs shall give notice of the ruling. CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Jurisdiction Under CCP § 2026.010 CCP § 2026.010, subdivision (c), provides: “If the deponent is not a party to the action . . . a party serving a deposition notice under this section shall use any process and procedures required and available under the laws of the state, territory, or insular possession where the deposition is to be taken to compel the deponent to attend and to testify, as well as to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing for inspection, copying, testing

The court therefore GRANTS plaintiff’s motion to quash defendant’s Deposition Subpoenas for Production of Business Records because they do not comply with the requirements of CCP § 2026.010 for obtaining discovery in another state.

Proc., § 2026.010(c).) Defendant also points out that no out-of-state commission has been issued. (See id. , § 2026.010(f).) Plaintiffs opposition does not address these legal requirements, and Plaintiff does not attempt to demonstrate that her subpoena satisfies these requirements. However, to avoid the complexities of out-of-state service, Plaintiff should discover whether AT&T has a custodian in California with access to responsive documents and serve that custodian instead.

Proc., § 2026.010, subd. (c).) The Court disagrees. Even if Deponent has agreed to attend the deposition absent service of a proper deposition subpoena, Defendant still must compel the deposition to ensure that a court has jurisdiction over the proceedings, i.e., to resolve any motions relating to the deposition. The Court declines to issue a blanket protective order precluding Deponent’s deposition.

. § 2026.010(f). There does not appear to be any reason not to issue the commission.

CCP § 2026.010(b). Defendant shall make herself available for deposition in Pennsylvania no later than March 1, 2020. This ruling is without prejudice for Plaintiff to bring a motion under CCP § 2025.20 to change the location of the deposition. Defendant Sy Morales shall appear for deposition no later than March 1, 2020 on a date to be re-noticed by Plaintiff. If Defense counsel no longer represents this defendant, counsel shall file a substitution of attorney or motion to withdraw.

(CCP §2026.010(c); Weil & Brown, California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial §§ 8:536, 8:636 (Rutter Group 2022).) Nor does the subpoena have a copy of the proof of service that is filled out—it is blank. As Defendant did not use Arizona’s process and procedures, and used a California subpoena, the subpoena is invalid. As such, the motion is granted. 1 As for sanctions, Defendant did not indicate a request for sanctions in the notice or supporting papers. (CCP §2023.040.)

Proc., § 2026.010. Rather, evidence code section 1560 explicitly notes that a subpoena served upon the custodian of records in which the business is neither a party not the place where any cause of action is alleged to have arisen should comply with Code Civ. Proc., § 2026.010. (Cal. Evid. Code § 1560.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is MOOT. As noted, pursuant to Code Civ.

(CCP §2026.010(c); Weil & Brown, California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial §§ 8:536, 8:636 (Rutter Group 2022).) As Defendant did not use Nevada’s process and procedures, and used a California subpoena, the subpoena is invalid. The motion is granted. Third, as to DiPrima, personal service of a subpoena is required. (CCP §2020.220.) Defendant improperly served via e-mail, irrespective of DiPrima’s wishes. The subpoena is invalid. The motion is granted.

Estacion Foundation International’s notice of deposition noticed the location of the deposition outside the geographic limits set forth in CCP § 2026.010(b). Although one of the parties -- party deponent Sharon Morgan -- stipulated to the location, the moving parties did not. All parties must stipulate. Code Civ.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Tax Costs is GRANTED as to all items but $65.72 in connection with out-of-state deposition costs. ANALYSIS: Plaintiff moved to tax the following items of costs: (1) trial transcripts; (2) mediation fee; (3) out-of-state deposition subpoena costs; and (4) motion to be relieved as counsel filing fee. The total costs objected to in the motion amount to $13,315.72. Defendants concede that all of the costs objected to should be removed.

(CCP section 2026.010). The Court does not agree with Defendant's arguments that the deposition must wait until the Court's ruling on the Motion to Compel Further Responses. Plaintiff has the right to take Defendant's deposition at the time it so chooses as it pertains to the timing of other discovery methods in this litigation.

DISCUSSION: Motion For Commission To Take Out-Of-State Deposition Defendant/Cross-Complainant Maissaa Mousa moves for a commission to take the out-of-state deposition of Liza Shigute in Ethiopa.

Proc., § 2026.010, subd. (a).) However, if the deponent is not a party or a party-affiliated witness, a party serving a deposition notice under this section shall use any process and procedures required and available under the laws of the state where the deposition is to be taken to compel the deponent to attend and to testify. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2026.010, subd. (c).)

(a); 2026.010, subd. (b).) Lyft objected that Garzon lives in Tennessee, and therefore the notice for the deposition in Los Angeles was defective. Lyft argues that there is no good cause to take Dorton’s deposition. However, Dorton signed verifications in this case, which is a sufficient reason for Plaintiff to take his deposition. Plaintiff states he will take both depositions in Tennessee. Plaintiff’s motion to compel Garzon and Dorton’s depositions is GRANTED.

(C.C.P. §2026.010(c).) As part of this procedure, the Discovery Act authorizes California courts, when necessary or convenient, to issue a “commission” to a deposition officer in another state. Such appointment effectively authorizes that person to administer oaths and to take testimony for use in the California action. (C.C.P. §2026.010(f).) As discussed, Defendant issued California subpoenas to two out-of-state insurance companies.

Out-of-state depositions are subject to different procedures, set out in section 2026.010(c) of the Code. Compliance with that section is mandatory for out-of-state depositions: “a party serving a deposition notice under this section shall use any process and procedures required and available under the laws of the state...where the deposition is to be taken to compel the deponent to attend and testify.” Code Civ. Proc. § 2026.010(c). A subpoena must be personally served. Code Civ. Proc. § 2020.220(b).

CCP 2026.010 (c) provides that if a deponent is not a party to the action, a party serving a deposition notice under this section shall use any process and procedures required and available under the laws of the state where the deposition is to be taken to compel the deponent to attend.

. § 2026.010(b). Should a location not be provided, Plaintiff can move for terminating sanctions.” Since that time, Defendants have refused to disclose Guindy’s location, and Plaintiff now moves for terminating sanctions. Because Defendants have demonstrated that they have no intention of allowing their depositions, the Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. The Court strikes Defendants’ Answer and enters their defaults.

Code § 2026.010 (a) & (b)[bold emphasis added].) Here, the Notice of Deposition does not specify a place of deposition, but only specifies that the deposition shall take place via videoconferencing.

Proc., § 2026.010(c).) Accordingly, while the court, if available, will attempt to make a ruling during the deposition, it reserves the right to review the decision subject to further briefing by the parties.

(CCP 2026.010(f)) As set forth above, there is cause to have Christine Nguyen appear again. In addition, Nancy Tran, who has never previously appeared for deposition, is a sister of parties Anh Manh and Catherine Nguyen, and has been involved in the management of their mother’s money. She is thus a percipient witness whose deposition is appropriately taken.

Proc., § 2026.010, subd. (c).) For example, in New York, a party must present a subpoena issued by a court of California to the county clerk in the county in which discovery is sought to be collected in New York. (NY CPLR § 3119, subd. (b)(1).) The clerk, in accordance with that court’s procedure, shall promptly issue a subpoena for service upon the person to which the out-of-state subpoena is directed. (NY CPLR § 3119, subd. (b)(2).)

Nature of Proceedings: Motion Commission & Order for Out of State Deposition The Court has in hand the stipulation filed on August 6 in this matter. Thank you. Ruling: Off calendar.

Proc., § 2026.010, subd. (c). Dina has demonstrated that Nalepa's testimony is relevant for discovery purposes. As the motion is not opposed, Nalepa has not shown why he should not be required to submit to deposition. Accordingly, the motion to compel the deposition is granted. The Shacknais are directed to serve notice of the ruling on their respective motions on all parties within 2 court days.

Benbow are not parties to the action, CCP 2026.010(c) as well as the Uniform Interstate Deposition and Discovery Act ("UIDDA") requires Pl to issue and serve a deposition subpoena from the state where the deposition is to be held. Defs contend that Pl ahs failed to do either.

Code of Civil Procedure Section 2026.010 provides: “(a) Any party may obtain discovery by taking . . . [a] deposition . . . in another state of the United States, or in a territory or an insular possession subject to its jurisdiction . . . .

Proc., § 2026.010; Cal Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1346. As such, the motion is continued to 8/13/20 at 2pm. The parties shall meet and confer regarding the depositions.

The Second District Court of Appeal has ruled this restriction applies to out-of-state deposition witnesses, and “restricts a deponent from being required to attend a California deposition if the deponent is not a California resident.” Toyota Motor Corp. v. Superior Court (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1107, 1113.

[CCP § 2026.010(c)]. Weil & Brown, Civil Proc. Before Trial (The Rutter Group, 2021 rev.) 8:636, italics in the original. CCP section 2026.010 provides, in pertinent part: (a) Any party may obtain discovery by taking an oral deposition, as described in Section 2025.010, in another state of the United States, or in a territory or an insular possession subject to its jurisdiction.

Proc., § 2026.010, subd. (a).) Because a California court does not have personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state third party witness, however, the parties in the California action must use the legal processes of the state of residence of the third party witness to compel the witness to attend, testify and produce documents at a deposition. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2026.010, subd. (c).)

Instead, the Court granted the unopposed request to compel the deposition pursuant to section 2026.010(c), which authorizes parties to depose non-party witnesses pursuant to the laws of the state where the deposition is taken. As a result, Dina must seek relief in Colorado. See, Coopman v. Superior Court In and For San Mateo County (1965) 237 Cal.App.2d 656, 660-661. Thus, the motion for sanctions is denied. 2.

Service of Subpoena to Appear at Deposition in Massachusetts Citing Code of Civil Procedure, § 2026.010(b) cross-complainant is operating on the assumption that a notice of deposition and demand for production directed at Michael Umina is properly served by mail to his counsel and enforceable after such service, because cross- complainant asserts he is an agent of cross-defendant.

Plaintiff cites to Code of Civil Procedure section 2026.010 (c) for the proposition that the subpoena to Accredo Specialty Pharmacy is void because it is a resident of Pennsylvania. This is not a valid basis for challenging the subpoena because section 2026.010 only applies to oral depositions whereas here, the deposition seeks business records. Nevertheless, each of Defendant’s subpoenas is defective, including the one to Accredo Specialty Pharmacy.

New deposition notices must be properly issued, and any out-of-state subpoenas must comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2026.010, subdivision (c). This is an action involved alleged wire fraud in the purchase of real property in New Hampshire.

The procedures for taking oral and written depositions set forth in sections 2025.010, 2026.010, and 2028.010 apply to a deposition of a listed trial expert witness except as otherwise provided. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.410.) The service of a proper deposition notice accompanied by the tender of the expert witness fee described in section 2034.430 is effective to require the party employing or retaining the expert to produce the expert for deposition. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.460, subd. (a).)

witness of a business in an action in which the business is neither a party nor the place where any cause of action is alleged to have arisen, and the subpoena requires the production of all or any part of the records of the business, it is sufficient compliance therewith if the custodian or other qualified witness delivers by mail or otherwise a true, legible, and durable copy of all of the records described in the subpoena to the clerk of the court or to another person described in subdivision (d) of Section 2026.010

The procedures for taking oral and written depositions set forth in Chapters 9 (commencing with Section 2025.010), 10 (commencing with Section 2026.010), and 11 (commencing with Section 2028.010) apply to a deposition of a listed trial expert witness except as provided in this article.”

CCP 2026.010(b) allows the deposition on a non-resident party to occur within 75 miles of the witness out of state residence. CCP 2026.010(c) requires the deposition of a non-party, non-resident be taken in accordance with the laws of the witness residence. The Court of Appeal in Toyota Motor Corp v. Superior Court (2011) 197 Cal.App.4 th 1107 held that this statutory scheme prohibits California courts from compelling a non-resident witness to appear for deposition in California.

Proc., section 2026.010, subd., (b).) If a party wishes to depose a party at a more distant place or in a different state, the party must file a motion to obtain a court order. (Code Civ. Proc., section 2025.260, subd. (a).) A court may condition the order on the deposing partys payment in advance of the deponents reasonable travel expenses. (Code Civ. Proc., section 2025.260, subd. (c).)

witness of a business in an action in which the business is neither a party nor the place where any cause of action is alleged to have arisen, and the subpoena requires the production of all or any part of the records of the business, it is sufficient compliance therewith if the custodian or other qualified witness delivers by mail or otherwise a true, legible, and durable copy of all of the records described in the subpoena to the clerk of the court or to another person described in subdivision (d) of Section 2026.010

(See (Code of Civil Procedure, §§ 2026.010(a) and 2026.010(b).) TENTATIVE RULING # 10: DEFENDANT/CROSS-COMPLAINANT DEATSCH INS. AGENCY, INC.’S MOTION TO COMPEL CROSS-DEFENDANT BASS UNDERWRITERS, INC. TO PRODUCE A PERSON QUALIFIED FOR DEPOSITION IS DENIED. NO HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE HELD (LEWIS V.

The procedures for taking oral and written depositions set forth in Chapters 9 (commencing with Section 2025.010), 10 (commencing with Section 2026.010), and 11 (commencing with Section 2028.010) apply to a deposition of a listed trial expert witness except as provided in this article. (CCP § 2034.410.)

(CCP § 2026.010(b).) (4) The deposition will be unreasonably cumulative and duplicative and Defendant has already offered to produce its Person Most Knowledgeable (“PMK”). a. However, the deponent has signed all of the discovery verifications in this action. (See Opposition, Skanes Decl., ¶ 7 and Reply, Goldsmith Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. 2.) Thus, Plaintiff should be able to take his deposition concerning the sources for the discovery responses since he verified Defendant’s discovery in this case.

Proc. § 2026.010(d)(1).) Plaintiffs motion is DENIED in its entirety.

The procedures for taking oral and written depositions set forth in Chapters 9 (commencing with Section 2025.010), 10 (commencing with Section 2026.010), and 11 (commencing with Section 2028.010) apply to a deposition of a listed trial expert witness except as provided in this article. (CCP § 2034.410.)

CCP § 2026.010(b). Thus, the default is that plaintiffs will be deposed within 75 miles of their residence, no matter where that is. A party desiring to take the deposition of a natural person who is a party to the action may make a motion for an order that the deponent attend for deposition at a place that is more distant than that permitted under § 2025.250. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under § 2016.040. CCP § 2025.260(a).

As an out of state witness, the court cannot compel the PMK (Officer, agent, etc.) of a specially appearing party to appear in California for their deposition but the procedure to take depositions of a deponent who is not yet a party is provided in CCP 2026.010(c) . Motion is DENIED. No sanctions because the motion was brought with substantial justification. 2.

Proc., § 2026.010, subd. (c).) In Florida, “whenever a litigant in one state desires to depose a witness residing in another state he must first secure the appointment of a commissioner by the court where the litigation originates. He may then apply to the court having personal jurisdiction over the witness for the process necessary to secure the attendance of the witness. [Citation.]

“If the witness named in the subpoena does not reside or conduct business in this state, the department head may seek to compel the witness’ testimony and production, inspection, and copying of documents or other items described in subdivision (e) of Section 11181 in the manner provided for the enforcement of a deposition notice to a nonparty as described in Section 2026.010 or 2027.010 of the Code of Civil Procedure or in any other manner authorized by any law.” (Gov. Code, § 11187, subd. (c).)

August 8, 2022 Defendants Rebecca June Grossman and Peter Grossman (collectively, Defendants) seek an order to issue a commission to take an out-of state deposition of David Huelson (Huelson). Defendants provide that Huelson was a detective for the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department and conducted an investigation of the subject accident involving Defendants. The court does not hear requests for issuance of out-of-state commissions by way of noticed motion.

The procedures for taking oral and written depositions set forth in Chapters 9 (commencing with Section 2025.010), 10 (commencing with Section 2026.010), and 11 (commencing with Section 2028.010) apply to a deposition of a listed trial expert witness except as provided in this article.”

Proc., § 2026.010, subd. (c).) In Florida, “whenever a litigant in one state desires to depose a witness residing in another state he must first secure the appointment of a commissioner by the court where the litigation originates. He may then apply to the court having personal jurisdiction over the witness for the process necessary to secure the attendance of the witness. [Citation.]

DISCUSSION: CCP §2026.010(b) provides: “If a deponent is a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, the service of the deposition notice is effective to compel that deponent to attend and to testify, as well as to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling.”

Proc., §§ 2025.250 [authorizing in-person depositions], 2026.010 [describing the procedure for depositions outside of California]; Rule of Court, Rule 3.1010, subd. (a)(3).) Here, there is no request for an employee to travel great distances in order for their deposition to be held. In fact, the noticed depositions are to take place at a location that is 5 miles away from the store where these employees work.

Under CCP � 2026.010, a party may take an oral deposition in another state. If the deponent is a party, service of a deposition notice is effective to compel the deponent to attend at a place within 75 miles of the deponent�s business or residence. Such a deposition shall be conducted either (1) under supervision of a person authorized to administer oaths by the laws of the US or of the place of examination, and is not otherwise disqualified, or (2) before a person appointed by the court.

(CCP §§ 2023.010, 2025.410(a), 2025.430, 2026.010(a).) Plaintiff is also subject to monetary sanctions. Defendants request for $1,110.00 in sanctions imposed jointly and severally on counsel is granted in full. Payment is due within 20 days of entry of this order. Based on the foregoing, Defendants motion to compel Plaintiff to appear for deposition is granted. Plaintiff is sanctioned, jointly and severally with counsel, $1,100.00. It is so ordered.

On April 14, 2023, Defendant issued a valid out-of-state deposition subpoena of Renteria. (Decl. of An ¶4, Exh. A.) On September 21, 2023, after this Court denied Plaintiffs motion to quash the deposition of Renteria, Defendant served its Second Amended Notice of Deposition Renteria on September 21, 2023, set for October 5, 2023. (Decl. of An ¶6, Exh. C.) Renteria agreed to remotely appear on October 5, 2023, for deposition.

In contrast to the foregoing, CCP § 2026.010 governs depositions in another state of the United States.

The procedures for taking oral and written depositions set forth in Chapters 9 (commencing with Section 2025.010), 10 (commencing with Section 2026.010), and 11 (commencing with Section 2028.010) apply to a deposition of a listed trial expert witness except as provided in this article.” CCP § 2034.410. Plaintiff is entirely within his rights to seek the depositions of the expert witnesses designated by Defendant (and likely would be subject to claims of malpractice if he did not).

Counsel cited another trial, as well as the need to conduct 13 expert depositions and attend the out-of-state deposition of Plaintiff’s mother, within the following days. (Id., Ex. M.) At this point, Plaintiff’s counsel threatened to file the present motion if the deposition was not taken off-calendar. It is not entirely clear what caused Plaintiff’s counsel to renege on the agreed-upon deposition date.

witness of a business in an action in which the business is neither a party nor the place where any cause of action is alleged to have arisen, and the subpoena requires the production of all or any part of the records of the business, it is sufficient compliance therewith if the custodian or other qualified witness delivers by mail or otherwise a true, legible, and durable copy of all of the records described in the subpoena to the clerk of the court or to another person described in subdivision (d) of Section 2026.010

The procedures for taking oral and written depositions set forth in Chapters 9 (commencing with Section 2025.010), 10 (commencing with Section 2026.010), and 11 (commencing with Section 2028.010) apply to a deposition of a listed trial expert witness except as provided in this article. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.410.)

The procedures for taking oral and written depositions set forth in Chapters 9 (commencing with Section 2025.010), 10 (commencing with Section 2026.010), and 11 (commencing with Section 2028.010) apply to a deposition of a listed trial expert witness except as provided in this article.

Defendants cite only to CCP section 2026.010(c) essentially for the proposition that a party must follow the laws of the forum where the deposition subpoena is to be enforced. However, subsection (c) applies to a “party serving a deposition notice” and requires such a party to abide by the terms of the forum state.

. §2026.010, subd. (c). Here, the proofs of service of deposition subpoena for production of business records fail to identify the person served, whether the person served was an officer, director, or custodian of records of the company, or the date of service. (Souza Dec., ¶4, Exs. 3, 4.) The proofs of service are also not signed by the person who served the subpoenas. (Ibid.)

. § 2026.010(b). Hill, Logsdon, Southside, and Log Hill raised written objections and did not appear. The Court finds no merit in the bases for their refusals to appear. C.C.P. § 418.10(e) expressly provides that “no act” by a specially appearing defendant may be construed as a general appearance while the defendant’s motion to quash is pending or the defendant’s subsequent writ petition, if any, is pending. (See, e.g., ViaView, Inc. v. Retzlaff (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 198, 212.)

Proc., § 2026.010, subd. (c).) Defendant’s request for $1,500.00 in sanctions for this straight-forward motion is unreasonable. Rather, the Court finds $350 to be a reasonable amount of sanctions to be imposed against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, jointly and severally, for their abuse of the discovery process. CONCLUSION The motion is GRANTED.

The procedures for taking oral and written depositions set forth in Chapters 9 (commencing with Section 2025.010), 10 (commencing with Section 2026.010), and 11 (commencing with Section 2028.010) apply to a deposition of a listed trial expert witness except as provided in this article. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2034.410.) Plaintiff has not provided statute or case law showing that the deposition of a doctor who conducted a medical examination is exempted from this provision.

. §§ 1989, 2026.010(c).) Further, the underlying events of this lawsuit occurred in Texas, and all records, documents, and other physical evidence are located in Texas. The Court agrees that the listed private factors weigh in favor of dismissal so that Plaintiff may re-file in Texas.

Proc., § 2026.010, subd. (c).) Remote video depositions have also gained significant traction in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and are an efficient, low-cost method for obtaining the testimony of the treating physicians who reside on the East Coast. (See Roulier v.

witness of a business in an action in which the business is neither a party nor the place where any cause of action is alleged to have arisen, and the subpoena requires the production of all or any part of the records of the business, it is sufficient compliance therewith if the custodian or other qualified witness delivers by mail or otherwise a true, legible, and durable copy of all of the records described in the subpoena to the clerk of the court or to another person described in subdivision (d) of Section 2026.010

witness of a business in an action in which the business is neither a party nor the place where any cause of action is alleged to have arisen, and the subpoena requires the production of all or any part of the records of the business, it is sufficient compliance therewith if the custodian or other qualified witness delivers by mail or otherwise a true, legible, and durable copy of all of the records described in the subpoena to the clerk of the court or to another person described in subdivision (d) of Section 2026.010

Indeed the fact that plaintiff must rely upon the theory that “the requests now being made to Atlas is not barred because the financial information goes to the heart of the cause of action itself, and a litigant should not be denied access so easily” necessarily demonstrates the fact that it too sees the documents as being beyond what was requested and was authorized by the out-of-state deposition commission. 4.

Item 1 (Filing and motion fees) Plaintiff challenges the following: (1) the filing fees associated with taking the out-of-state deposition of plaintiff's pain management doctor, Dr. Monica Torres; (2) the ex parte applications to continue trial dated November 27, 2015 and April 13, 2016; and (3) the stipulation to continue the trial dated April 13, 2016. Dr. Torres: GRANTED ($215.45) While an out of state commission would ordinarily appear to be reasonably necessary for the conduct of the litigation, Dr.

Defendant seeks for Plaintiff to deposit an undertaking for costs in the sum total of $5,843—composed costs for jury fees, taking out-of-state deposition of Plaintiff, trial court reporter, and trial exhibits. “Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, a prevailing party is entitled to recover costs as a matter of right in any action or proceeding.” (CCP § 1032(b).)