How to Take Deposition - Foreign Jurisdiction (Outside California)

Useful Rulings on Noticing Out of State Deposition

Recent Rulings on Noticing Out of State Deposition

BARBARA CARRION, ET AL. V. LAUREN COOPER, ET AL.

. §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.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

JINN ONG VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

., § 2026.010(c).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

LUMINA V. UMINA

(Code of Civil Procedure, § 2026.010(b).)

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2020

LUMINA V. UMINA

(Code of Civil Procedure, § 2026.010(b).)

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2020

DITLEVSEN V. PEDERSEN

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 of Civil Procedure, § 2034.410.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2020

DITLEVSEN V. PEDERSEN

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 of Civil Procedure, § 2034.410.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2020

STEVEN ANDREW KAMIN VS EDGAR ALEJANDRO AVILA-MARTINEZ ET AL

(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.

  • Hearing

    Feb 25, 2020

SAWYERS VS BBD MASS TRANSIT CORP

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.

  • Hearing

    Feb 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

SAWYERS VS BBD MASS TRANSIT CORP

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.

  • Hearing

    Feb 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MICHAEL PARKS VS HUGH KNOWLTON

., § 2026.010, subd. (c).) DISCUSSION In this case, Defendant served a California deposition subpoena on Deponent, who is a resident of Washington, for a deposition in Seattle. (Declaration of Arya Rhodes, Exhibit A.) Defendant should have proceeded under Washington law to compel Deponent’s attendance at deposition or scheduled the deposition in California. Accordingly, the Court quashes the subpoena.

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 2019

PEOPLE EX. REL. CALONNE V. PINI

Unless the parties agree otherwise as to the time and place of deposition, the Pini Defendants are authorized to obtain a commission for the taking of the deposition at a place consistent with Code of Civil Procedure sections 2025.250, 2025.260, and 2026.010, and to serve any appropriate process to accomplish this deposition. For purposes of this deposition, the deponent is deemed by the court to be an individual rather than an officer, direct, managing agent, or employee of a party.

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2019

BRIANA ORNELAS VS SAFEWAY AUTO CENTER, INC.,, ET AL.

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.

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Serena R. Murillo

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

KNUDSON, ET AL. V. PORTER, ET AL.

., § 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

  • Hearing

    Nov 01, 2019

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

LISA BURCH ET AL VS INTEX CORP ET AL

., § 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.]

  • Hearing

    Aug 02, 2019

BRENDA WEBB VS GREYHOUND LINES INC ET AL

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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2019

LISA BURCH ET AL VS INTEX CORP ET AL

., § 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.]

  • Hearing

    Jun 28, 2019

HODAYA ELFANT ET AL VS CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL CENTER ET AL

., § 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).)

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2019

AMR HUSSEIN VS RUSTY ALLEN STARK ET AL

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).)

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2019

MINA SALIB VS MICHAEL J GUICE M D ET AL

. § 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). A $30 issuance fee for the Commission will also be required, Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jun 05, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

DESTINY HITCHCOCK VS SANDRA CASTELLINO

“[W]hen a subpoena duces tecum is served upon the custodian of records … 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 of the Code of Civil Procedure, together with the affidavit

  • Hearing

    May 29, 2019

KEISHA ABDELKADER VS SARMEN MENA CHECAN ET AL

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).)

  • Hearing

    May 16, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

S. SIDNEY MANDEL AND PAUL D. BERNSTEIN, AS CO-TRUSTEES FOR THE BENEFIT OF ELAINE S. BERNSTEIN VS. GRUBB & ELLIS REALTY INVESTORS LLC

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].)

  • Hearing

    May 01, 2019

JOSEPH M HUSMAN VS TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP ET AL

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.

  • Hearing

    Mar 07, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

RAFIK Y KAMELL VS HANY BOUSHRA MOURICE GUINDY ET AL

. § 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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 31, 2019

1 2 3 4     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.