Motion for Issuance of Out of State Deposition?

Useful Rulings on Motion for Issuance of Out of State Deposition

Recent Rulings on Motion for Issuance of Out of State Deposition

THEODORE DOZIER VS INTERSCOPE GEFFEN A&M RECORDS, ET AL.

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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2020

KUEHR VS. JOHNSTON

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.

  • Hearing

    Oct 25, 2019

MATEOS VS IEC CORPORATION

Prior to serving the subpoena, IEC obtained a commission for an out-of-state deposition from the Court. (ROA 294.) Mateos now moves to quash that subpoena. II. Analysis Mateos claims the subpoena infringes upon his constitutional right to privacy in his financial affairs.

  • Hearing

    Oct 04, 2019

MINA SALIB VS MICHAEL J GUICE M D ET AL

., to Request Commission for Out-of-State Deposition and Records from Person Most Knowledgeable for Plaintiff’s Former Employer, Honeywell UOP, filed on 5/7/19, is GRANTED. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2026.010(a); Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2026.010. Defendant, Michael J. Guice, M.D. is to lodge or bring to the hearing the Commission (Form Disc-030 and Exhibit A to the Motion)) for the court’s signature. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2026.010(f).

  • Hearing

    Jun 05, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

The petitions provide counsel’s declaration in support of the attorney’s fees claimed, which indicates that the law firm has served the lawsuit, discovery, and engaged in discovery motions, and the depositions of the property owners and an out of state deposition in Atlanta, investigated and added the manufacturer of an allegedly defective water heater, and evidently spent time in mediation as well. [Seuthe Decl., para. 4, 5]. There is no mention of any agreement with respect to fees.

  • Hearing

    Apr 19, 2019

DOWELL VS. TARGET

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.

  • Hearing

    Mar 14, 2019

CARMEN LARRACUENTE VS FHARLEN CAMPBELL

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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 23, 2019

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LUDIVINA LOVATO VS MMN INDUSTRIES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

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).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2019

  • Judge

    Wendy Chang or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ROCCO PERLA VS LUCY'S AUTO CENTER

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).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2019

  • Judge

    Wendy Chang or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ILANA DIAMOND VS. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. ET AL

Plaintiff Ilana Diamond'S Notice Of Motion For Issuance Of Commission Authorizing Out Of State Deposition In Accordance With Code Of Civil Procedure Section 2026.010 Set for hearing on Thursday, July 19, 2018, Line 6, Plaintiff Ilana Diamond'S Motion For Issuance Of Commission Authorizing Out Of State Deposition In Accordance With Code Of Civil Procedure Section 2026.010 Off calendar. The motion was heard on June 18, 2018. An order was filed on June 28, 2018. =302/hk

  • Hearing

    Jul 19, 2018

ILANA DIAMOND VS. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. ET AL

Plaintiff Ilana Diamond'S Notice Of Motion For Issuance Of Commission Authorizing Out Of State Deposition In Accordance With Code Of Civil Procedure Section 2026.010 Matter on calendar for Monday, June 18, 2018, Line 5, Plaintiff Ilana Diamond's Motion For Issuance Of Commission Authorizing Out Of State Deposition In Accordance With Code Of Civil Procedure Section 2026.010. Hearing required. =(302/HK)

  • Hearing

    Jun 18, 2018

ILANA DIAMOND VS. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. ET AL

Notice Of Motion For Issuance Of Commission Authorizing Out Of State Deposition In Accordance With Code Of Civil Procedure Section 2026.010 Matter on calendar for Tuesday, May 29, 2018, Line 11, PLAINTIFF ILANA DIAMOND'S Notice Of Motion For Issuance Of Commission Authorizing Out Of State Deposition In Accordance With Code Of Civil Procedure Section 2026.010. To be heard at 9:00 a.m. on the same date in department 301 (Discovery). =(302/HEK)

  • Hearing

    May 29, 2018

ILANA DIAMOND VS. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. ET AL

Plaintiff Ilana Diamond'S Notice Of Motion For Issuance Of Commission Authorizing Out Of State Deposition In Accordance With Code Of Civil Procedure Section 2026.010 Set for hearing on Tuesday, May 29, 2018, Line 4, Plaintiff Ilana Diamond's Motion For Issuance Of Commission Authorizing Out Of State Deposition In Accordance With Code Of Civil Procedure Section 2026.010.

  • Hearing

    May 29, 2018

  • Judge

    Melinda Derish

  • County

    San Francisco County, CA

JENNIFER TRYER ET AL VS TOY RUSSELL FIELDS III

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.

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

WILLIAM WOODMAN VS GREGORY C GREANEY, MD ET AL

Under Illinois law, an out-of-state deposition subpoena must be attached to an Illinois subpoena before it can be served. The Illinois subpoena must also describe with particularity the documents being requested. Ibid. Both of these requirements were satisfied in this case. (Lukitsch Dec., ¶8, Exs. D, E; Motion, Ex. A.) Although plaintiff claims that OSTA failed to serve copies of the deposition subpoenas on the parties, that is not the case as a completed proof of service is attached to each subpoena.

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2017

PLL,LLC VS. CARLTON GROUP,LTD. ET. AL.

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.

  • Hearing

    Sep 08, 2017

AMANDA FORSHER V. WAYNE'S TIRE, INC., ET AL.

The Court would agree that, with a conclusive admission of liability—including a lack of plaintiff’s comparative negligence—the expense of further discovery into liability issues (particularly including an out-of-state deposition) would be unwarranted since only causation and damage issues would remain. A conclusive admission of liability would also have the legal effect of negating and/or eliminating any of defendants’ affirmative defenses which are inconsistent with that admission.

  • Hearing

    May 22, 2017

AMANDA FORSHER V. WAYNE'S TIRE, INC., ET AL.

The Court would agree that, with a conclusive admission of liability—including a lack of plaintiff’s comparative negligence—the expense of further discovery into liability issues (particularly including an out-of-state deposition) would be unwarranted since only causation and damage issues would remain. A conclusive admission of liability would also have the legal effect of negating and/or eliminating any of defendants’ affirmative defenses which are inconsistent with that admission.

  • Hearing

    May 22, 2017

INTERNATIONAL PATIENTS NETWORK INC VS MAISSAA MOUSA

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.

  • Hearing

    Apr 17, 2017

SANDRA L COLLIGAN VS. IPAYMENT INC, ET AL

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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 31, 2017

HICKMAN VS. HARDROCK CAFE INTERNATIONAL (USA) INC

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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 03, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HICKMAN VS. HARDROCK CAFE INTERNATIONAL (USA) INC

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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 03, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

BRENDA BALLANTINE ET AL VS PACIFICA GRADUATE INSTITUTE

Unless otherwise agreed in writing by counsel, the further deposition session is to be conducted upon the same terms and conditions for the out-of-state deposition as was the original deposition session.

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2016

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

RICHARD KAPLON VS SANTA BARBARA COTTAGE HOSPITAL INC ET AL

The motion to compel fee, $40, motion for summary judgment fee, $200, ex parte application fee, $40, and commission fee for out-of-state deposition, $120, apply only to Marsh Kaplon (total, $400). No challenge is made to jury fees in the amount of $1,699, and all are allowed.

  • Hearing

    Mar 19, 2012

GLOBAL HORIZONS INC VS KOOSHAREM CORPORATION ETC

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).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2010

1 2     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.