Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
Depositions in California are generally subject to the Code of Civil Procedure, regardless of the deposition location. For out-of-state third-party witnesses, parties must comply with the legal processes of the witness's state of residence. California has adopted a version of the Interstate and International Depositions Discovery Act under Code Civ. Proc., ยงยง 2029.100-2029.900. Furthermore, CCP 2026.010 allows for oral depositions in another state, with certain conditions and considerations in place. If a jurisdiction requires a formal request or commission, the Code of Civil Procedure provides for a commission to be issued by the clerk of the court upon request or ex parte application.
Depositions in a California action are generally governed by the rules set forth in the Code of Civil Procedure, regardless of where the deposition is to take place. (Code Civ. Proc., ยง 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., ยง 2026.010, subd. (c).) โยง 1989 provides that โ[a] witness ... is not obliged to attend as a witness before any court, judge, justice or any other officer, unless the witness is a resident within the state at the time of service.โ (Code of Civil Procedure, ยง 1989.)
California has also adopted a version of the Interstate and International Depositions Discovery Act under Code Civ. Proc., ยงยง 2029.100-2029.900. Further, Code Civ. Proc., ยง 1987.3 provides that a subpoena duces tecum may served upon by the custodian of records or another qualified witness as provided in Evidence Code ยง 1560 even if the witness is not a resident of the state at the time of service. (see Code Civ. Proc., ยง 1987.3.) However, this section does not excuse compliance with Code Civ. Proc., ยง 2026.010. Rather, Evidence Code ยง 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., ยง 2026.010. (Cal. Evid. Code ยง 1560.)
Under CCP 2026.010, a party may take an oral deposition in another state. A party desiring to depose a natural person who is a party, or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, at a place more distant than that provided in Code of Civil Procedure ยง 2025.250, may move for an order directing the deponent to attend a more distant deposition. (Code Civ. Proc., ยง 2025.260(b).)
In determining the motion, the court must consider any factor tending to show whether the interest of justice will be served by granting the order, including:
(Code Civ. Proc., ยง 2025.260(b).)
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. Any such appointment authorizes that person to administer oaths and to take testimony.
The clerk of the court issues a commission authorizing the deposition in another state on request, which requests that process issue in the place where the examination is to be held, requiring attendance and enforcing obligations to produce documents and electronically stored information (ESI), and answer questions.
In order to accommodate jurisdictions that require a formal request or commission from the California court to use their legal process, the Code of Civil Procedure provides for a commission to be issued by the clerk of the court upon request, or, if the jurisdiction requires a court order, upon ex parte application. (Code Civ. Proc., ยง 2026.010, subd. (f).)
Note that while ยง 2025.260, subdivision (a), provides for a court to permit a deposition of a party or officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party at a place โthat is more distant than that permitted under ยง 2025.250 [75 miles from the deponent's residence or within the county where the action is pending and within 150 miles of the deponent's residence],โ ยง 2025.260 does not provide for those depositions to be held at a place more distant than that permitted by ยง 1989. There is simply no conflict between the plain language of ยงยง 1989 and 2025.260. ยง 2025.260 permits depositions more than 75 (or 150) miles from a deponent's residence, but ยง 1989 restricts a deponent from being required to attend a California deposition if the deponent is not a California resident.โ (Toyota Motor Corp. v. Superior Court (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1107, 1113.) This does not leave a party without the ability to depose these most qualified persons. The party can depose the most qualified persons in their states of residence.
Guice, M.D., to Request Commission for Out-of-State Deposition and Records from Person Most Knowledgeable for Plaintiffโs Former Employer, Honeywell UOP, filed on 5/7/19, is GRANTED. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. ยง 2026.010(a); Cal. Code Civ. Proc. ยง 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 courtโs signature. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. ยง 2026.010(f).
MINA SALIB VS MICHAEL J GUICE M D ET AL
BC711161
Jun 05, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Medical Malpractice
Defendant has not indicated that Tennessee requires an out-of-state court to have appointed an officer to administer oaths and take testimony. Under CCP ยง 2026.010(b), the service of the deposition notice is sufficient to require the party-affiliated out-of-state deponents attendance at deposition. The motion is GRANTED.
TABITHA MCCLAIN, ET AL. VS MITSUBISHI MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC.
22STCV35706
May 09, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The providers are in Nevada, such that out-of-state commissions are necessary to go forward with their depositions. CCP ยง2026.010 governs depositions of out-of-state persons. ยง2026.010(f) permits the Court to issue a commission authorizing the deposition in another state. Specifically, it provides, โOn request, the clerk of the court shall issue a commission authorizing the deposition in another state or place.
BRENDA WEBB VS GREYHOUND LINES INC ET AL
BC667750
Jul 26, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
HEARING ON MOTION TO TAKE DEPOSITION PURSUANT TO CCP 2026.010 FILED BY DANA KUEHR * TENTATIVE RULING: * Plaintiffโs motion for commission to take out-of-state deposition is granted.
KUEHR VS. JOHNSTON
MSC18-02562
Oct 25, 2019
Contra Costa County, CA
Uniform Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act ยง6; CCP ยง2029.600(a). Plaintiffโs motion is overbroad in the relief she seeks. For example, she seeks to preclude any out of state discovery as a blanket rule. This is clearly improper. She also wants to depose counsel. A motion for protective order is not the proper procedure. Further, โDepositions of opposing counsel are presumptively improper, severely restricted, and require โextremelyโ good causeโa high standard.โ (Carehouse Convalescent Hospital v.
DOE VS CORONA-NORCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
RIC1412607
Apr 10, 2017
Riverside County, CA
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANTโS MOTION FOR AN ORDER ISSUING COMMISSION TO TAKE OUT-OF-STATE DEPOSITIONS AND COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO SIGN AN AUTHORIZATION RELEASING RECORDS On September 7, 2017, Plaintiff Carmen Larracuente (โPlaintiffโ) filed this action against Defendant Fharlen Campbell (โDefendantโ) for motor vehicle and general negligence relating to a September 11, 2015 automobile accident.
CARMEN LARRACUENTE VS FHARLEN CAMPBELL
BC675100
Jan 23, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
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 Farhatโs motion to be heard on November 2, 2020. Trial is scheduled for January 26, 2021. PARTYโS 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.
STORMY HEBREW VS ROBERT FARHAT
19STCV26648
Nov 02, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel the Telephonic Deposition of Kerr Corporation's Eric Carey is denied. Plaintiffs have failed to submit evidence demonstrating Mr. Carey is an "officer, director, managing agent, or employee" of Defendant Kerr Corporation. (Code Civ. 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).
DAVID SPRINGER ET AL VS. ASBESTOS COMPANIES ET AL
CGC20276849
Feb 25, 2021
San Francisco County, CA
Motion to Quash Plaintiff TMH Roofing, Inc.โs (โPlaintiffโ) Motion to stay and quash a deposition subpoena issued by defendant Roland O. Quintero (โQuinteroโ) to a Mr. Bob Gindorff, as an out-of-state, non-party witness, is GRANTED. The subject deposition subpoena was issued by Quintero to Mr. Bob Gindorff at an address in Minnesota.
TMH ROOFING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS ROLAND CONSTRUCTION SERVICE, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
30-2019-01101263
Nov 30, 2020
Orange County, CA
CASE NO: BC644258 [TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTโS 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 Defendantโs request.
JENNIFER TRYER ET AL VS TOY RUSSELL FIELDS III
BC644258
Mar 13, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
.: BC615604 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS FOR PLAINTIFFโS OUT OF STATE MEDICAL, BILLING, AND RADIOGRAPHIC RECORDS Plaintiff Rod Messecaโs Motion to Quash Subpoenas for Plaintiffโs Out-of-State Medical, Billing, and Radiographic Records is GRANTED. The Court declines to award sanctions against either party or their attorneys. The Court considered the moving and opposition papers.
ROD MESSECA VS KRISTEN HUNSBERGER
BC615604
Feb 14, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
The subpoenas were not properly served on the out-of-state entities. A party seeking discovery from an out-of-state non-party must use the process and procedures required and available under the laws of the state where the deponent is to be compelled. (Code Civ. Proc., ยง 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 ยง 3119, subd. (b)(1).)
HODAYA ELFANT ET AL VS CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL CENTER ET AL
BC705704
Jun 25, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
The Court notes that, given the expense associated with out-of-state depositions, the Court would likely grant a request to permit Plaintiff to attend via telephone. The Court declines to award sanctions. The Court concludes the parties had a good faith dispute regarding Deponentโs deposition, and that neither party acted in bad faith or without substantial justification. (See Code Civ. Proc., ยง 1987.2.) Therefore, an award of sanctions would be unjust.
MICHAEL PARKS VS HUGH KNOWLTON
BC722532
Dec 09, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Application for Out-of-State Deposition Subpoena โ On 1/24/17, Plaintiff filed this ex parte application requesting an out-of-state deposition subpoena (CCP ยง 2026.010) to seek records from a data company compiling credit card transactions for Defendants. See Young Decl. ยถยถ 5-6. Plaintiff submits that the data company has objected to the authority of the arbitration panel to issue a subpoena (id. ยถ 7, Ex.
SANDRA L COLLIGAN VS. IPAYMENT INC, ET AL
BC505570
Jan 31, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
California deposition subpoenas are only valid for depositions taken โwithin the state.โ Code Civ. Proc. ยง 2020.010(a)(1). Out-of-state depositions are subject to different procedures, set out in section 2026.010(c) of the Code.
HALE VS LISTREPORTS, INC.
30-2017-00914611-CU-WT-CJC
Aug 03, 2018
Orange County, CA
The court's tentative ruling is to: Grant and allow telephonic deposition of an out of state non party. Deposition will take place at Plaintiff's counsel's office, where the certified court reporter can administer the oath on the non party via phone and should Defendant obtain counsel, Defendant's counsel may attend deposition at Plaintiff's counsel's office.
ELENA SAINZ VS. 1 MOVER DEPOT INC
56-2012-00415718-CU-PO-VTA
Feb 19, 2013
Ventura County, CA
. ยง 2026.010 requires that a party who wishes to take the deposition of an out-of-state non- party โshall 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, sampling, and any related activity.โ (C.C.P. ยง 2026.010 (c).)
RODRIGUEZ VS SUPER CENTER CONCEPTS, INC.
CVRI2304678
Dec 12, 2023
Riverside County, CA
However, in the interest of judicial economy, the Court considers Plaintiffโs motion pursuant to the relevant statute, CCP ยง2026.010. The Court has the authority to issue a commission authorizing Defendantsโ depositions in another state. (CCP ยง2026.010(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 ยง2026.010(b).)
AMR HUSSEIN VS RUSTY ALLEN STARK ET AL
BC619243
Jun 12, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
The procedures of the Discovery Act for an out-of-state deposition can be met in two ways. In the simplest case, the parties can by written stipulation agree to their own procedure. (Code Civ. Proc., ยง 2016.030.) (All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise stated.) The parties clearly have not agreed in this case. Otherwise, the parties can comply with the rules for out-of-state depositions. (ยง 2026.010, subd. (a).)
GLOBAL HORIZONS INC VS KOOSHAREM CORPORATION ETC
1341206
Sep 21, 2010
Santa Barbara County, CA
Nature of Proceedings: Order Authorize Issuance to Obtain Records Defendantsโ Motion for Order Authorizing Issuance of Commissions for Out-of-State Depositions (Business Records Only) Ruling: Defendantsโ motion for an order authorizing issuance of commissions for out-of-state, business records only depositions is granted in part and denied in part.
GLOBAL HORIZONS INC VS KOOSHAREM CORPORATION ETC
1341206
Aug 10, 2010
Santa Barbara County, CA
The court will thus allow moving parties to depose the witness for up to an additional 3.5 hours. 2. Moving Partiesโ Application to Obtain Out-of-State Commissions is granted. Moving parties may obtain commissions for the depositions of Christine Nguyen and Nancy Tran. (CCP 2026.010(f)) As set forth above, there is cause to have Christine Nguyen appear again.
MANH VS. NGUYEN
30-2014-00757464-CU-DF-CJC
Sep 01, 2017
Orange County, CA
As such, it is unclear whether Plaintiff seeks to compel a โremoteโ deposition of Defendant in California or in Defendantโs resident state of Texas. Neither party cites C.C.P. ยง 2026.010, yet that section is directly applicable to Plaintiffโs attempt to depose a party who resides in another state. C.C.P. ยง 2026.010 expressly provides that, for parties, a deposition notice alone may be sufficient and that a commission is not required.
CINTORA VS BETOR
30-2018-00984571
Oct 19, 2020
Orange County, CA
Defendants indicate in a declaration that although plaintiffs counsel has suggested that defendants counsel should compel the medical providers to produce the records, As stated, all of these medical providers are out-of-state providers, and this Court does not have the authority to compel out-of-state medical providers to produce records. [Gunther Decl., para. 11].
JASON STEGER VS CSJ PROVIDENCE ST JOSEPH MEDICAL CENTER ET A
BC691050
Apr 15, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
CCP ยง 2026.010 governs out-of-state depositions of party-affiliated witnesses in pertinent part as follows: (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.
TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA VS BLACK EAGLE EXPRESS LLC, ET AL.
21STCV25029
Oct 14, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
However, CCP ยง 2026.010(c) states that โ[i]f the deponent is not a party to the action โฆ, a party serving a deposition notice under this section shall use any process and procedures required and available under the laws of the state โฆ 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[.]โ (Code Civ. Proc., ยง 2026.010(c) [emphasis added].)
S. SIDNEY MANDEL AND PAUL D. BERNSTEIN, AS CO-TRUSTEES FOR THE BENEFIT OF ELAINE S. BERNSTEIN VS. GRUBB & ELLIS REALTY INVESTORS LLC
30-2011-00449598-CU-BC-CXC
May 01, 2019
Orange County, CA
Plaintiff argues that Carfaxโs authorities, including the UIDDA are inapplicable and Plaintiff may compel the records for an out of state witness where personal attendance of the witness is not required. (Code Civ. Proc., ยง 1987.3.) Plaintiff also argues he properly met and conferred and Safewayโs motion to quash precludes Carfax from producing records until the motion to quash is resolved. (Code Civ. Proc., ยง1985.3, subd. (f)(3), subd. (g).)
BRIANA ORNELAS VS SAFEWAY AUTO CENTER, INC.,, ET AL.
18STLC05169
Nov 19, 2019
James E. Blancarte or Serena R. Murillo
Los Angeles County, CA
SEE CCP 2026.010(f).
VICKI WHITE ET AL VS WILLIAM GEORGE CUNDY JR
BC609052
Mar 28, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
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.
IBARRA VS. TECHNET PARTNERS, INC.
30-2018-00975519
Aug 13, 2020
Orange County, CA
See CCP 2026.010.
ANTONY DAVID GASPARETTI VS INCLUSIVE DOES 1-10, ET AL.
19STCV00918
Aug 28, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
ANALYSIS Code of Civil Procedure Section 2026.010 provides, 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. (Code Civ. Proc. ยง2026.010(a).) On request, the clerk of the court shall issue a commission authorizing the deposition in another state or place.
YUKINARI YAMAMOTO VS COMMERCE WEST INSURANCE COMPANY
23STCV13811
Sep 19, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
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 ยง 2026.010(f) and/or any other requirements of the Interstate and International Depositions and Discovery Act. See Code Civ. Proc. ยง 2029.100, et seq.; N.R.S 53.100, et seq.
LEWIS VS TOWNE CONSTRUCTION, INC.
37-2017-00022485-CU-PA-NC
Aug 23, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
The same rule applies to parties residing out of state: the deposition must occur within 75 miles of the residence or a business office of the deponent. CCP ยง 2026.010(b). Thus, the default is that plaintiffs will be deposed within 75 miles of their residence, no matter where that is.
ANGEL GARIBAY VS. GARCIA MORTUARY LLC
56-2013-00442540-CU-BC-VTA
Jul 18, 2014
Ventura County, CA
Motion: By Plaintiff to strike Defendant Central California Conference of Seventh-day Adventistsโ objections to the Plaintiff taking the deposition of non-party Witness Blake Johnson and to compel non-party Witness Blake Johnsonโs attendance at deposition; Sanctions Tentative Ruling: To deny the motion on the grounds that the court does not have jurisdiction to compel a resident of another state to appear for deposition. (CCP ยง 2026.010(c)) To deny all requests for sanctions. Explanation: CCP ยง 2026.010.
JAMES SEPEDA, JR VS. CHRISTOPHER BISPHAM
18CECG01500
Aug 22, 2018
Fresno County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
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. Proc., Rule 45, subd. (a). Finally, the deposition subpoena must be personally served on the witness. MT R. Civ. Proc., Rule 45, subd. (b). In the present case, the deposition subpoena for production of business records of Mr.
MICHAEL JOHNSON VS R&R AUCTION COMPANY LLC
1397046
Mar 27, 2015
Santa Barbara County, CA
Proc., ยง 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
KNUDSON, ET AL. V. PORTER, ET AL.
30-2019-01059265
Nov 01, 2019
Orange County, CA
Any party may obtain discovery by taking an oral deposition in another state. Code Civ. Proc. ยง 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. ยง 2026.010(b).
GALLO VS ANTHEM BLUE CROSS LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY
37-2017-00002516-CU-BT-NC
Jun 28, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
A party seeking discovery from an out-of-state non-party must use the process and procedures required and available under the laws of the state where the deponent is to be compelled. (Code Civ. Proc., ยง 2026.010, subd. (c).) In Florida, โwhenever 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.
LISA BURCH ET AL VS INTEX CORP ET AL
BC683396
Jun 28, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Jurisdiction Under CCP ยง 2026.010 CCP ยง 2026.010, subdivision (c), provides: โIf 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
MATTHIAS LENZ VS CPP KIMBALL LLC
17STCP00004
Dec 06, 2017
Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco
Los Angeles County, CA
Proc., ยง 2026.010(c).) Defendant also points out that no out-of-state commission has been issued. (See id. , ยง 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.
JANE DOE VS LUIS DIAZ ROJAS
22STCV41020
Jan 03, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
A party seeking discovery from an out-of-state non-party must use the process and procedures required and available under the laws of the state where the deponent is to be compelled. (Code Civ. Proc., ยง 2026.010, subd. (c).) In Florida, โwhenever 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.
LISA BURCH ET AL VS INTEX CORP ET AL
BC683396
Aug 02, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Proc. ยง 2026.010(f). There does not appear to be any reason not to issue the commission.
DEAN OPPERMAN ET AL VS PATRICIA WHEATLEY ET AL
1303726
Nov 24, 2009
Santa Barbara County, CA
Nature of Proceedings: Motion Out of State Commission to Take Deposition-R. Parker; Court Ordered Deposition of R. Parker Defendant๏ฟฝs motion for Court-ordered deposition of plaintiff Defendant๏ฟฝs motion for out of state commission to take plaintiff๏ฟฝs deposition RULINGS: The motions are both granted. BACKGROUND The action arises from a vehicle vs. bicycle accident which occurred on 8/6/11 on Castillo Street in Santa Barbara, between Montecito Street and Yanonali Street.
ROBERT PARKER VS LISANDRO CHAMORRO ET AL
1416980
Aug 26, 2014
Santa Barbara County, CA
Plaintiff's motion to compel depositions is granted in part. Assuming that Defendant Maureen McCole is a resident of Pennsylvania, whether she is being deposed as an individual or as Defendant's PMK, the deposition must be taken within 75 miles of her residence or business office unless otherwise stipulated by the parties. CCP ยง 2026.010(b). Defendant shall make herself available for deposition in Pennsylvania no later than March 1, 2020.
SAWYERS VS BBD MASS TRANSIT CORP
37-2018-00046442-CU-WT-NC
Feb 13, 2020
San Diego County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
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.
PRESTON SMITH, ET AL. VS DOES 1 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE
22STCV23880
Sep 30, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
AARON WILLIAM ELAM VS NWAFOR ENTERPRISES INC.,
KC067742
Dec 15, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Defendant must use the service of process and procedures available under the law of the state where the deposition is to take place. (CCP ยง2026.010(c); Weil & Brown, California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial ยงยง 8:536, 8:636 (Rutter Group 2022).) Nor does the subpoena have a copy of the proof of service that is filled outโit is blank. As Defendant did not use Arizonaโs process and procedures, and used a California subpoena, the subpoena is invalid.
GRIFFITHE VS SAMEC
CVRI2201133
Jul 25, 2023
Riverside County, CA
Defendant must use the service of process and procedures available under the law of the state where the deposition is to take place. (CCP ยง2026.010(c); Weil & Brown, California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial ยงยง 8:536, 8:636 (Rutter Group 2022).) As Defendant did not use Nevadaโs 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 ยง2020.220.)
GRIFFITHE VS SAMEC
CVRI2201133
Jul 13, 2023
Riverside County, CA
Estacion Foundation Internationalโs notice of deposition noticed the location of the deposition outside the geographic limits set forth in CCP ยง 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.
MORGAN VS. ESTACION
30-2016-00840248-CU-NP-CJC
Sep 25, 2017
Orange County, CA
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.
J.E. GROUP, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL. VS CSM SYCAMORE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
20STCV48660
Jun 12, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Lauren Cooper, et al., Case No. 19CV02162 (Judge Sterne) HEARING DATE: July 13, 2020 MATTER: Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoenas for Plaintiffโs Out-Of-State Medical, Billing, and X-Ray Records, and Out-Of State Employment and Payroll Records; Request for Monetary Sanctions ATTORNEYS: Jason Souza for Plaintiff Barbara Carrion John C.
BARBARA CARRION ET AL VS LAUREN COOPER ET AL
19CV02162
Jul 13, 2020
Santa Barbara County, CA
Plaintiff Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan's Motion to Compel The Deposition of Defendant Darwin Deason is GRANTED. The Court does not find the request premature. (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.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART AND SULLIVAN LLP VS DARWIN DEASON
BC651090
May 22, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Cross-Defendant Bass opposes the motion on the following grounds: Code of Civil Procedure, ยง 1989 bars compelled depositions of persons who reside out-of-state, even if they are employees of a corporation that has a principal office in California; by deleting the words โnotwithstanding Section 1989โ from Section 2025.250, the Legislature indicated an intent to bar compelled depositions of nonresidents under Section 2025.250; cross-defendant is under no obligation to designate a resident officer, agent, or employee
THUNDERBUTTE ENTERPRISES, LLC V. GENERAL STAR INDEMNITY CO.
PC-20160539
Feb 01, 2018
El Dorado County, CA
Garzon and Dorton Plaintiff noticed Garzonโs deposition was noticed for January 17, 2020 in Los Angeles, California and Dortonโs deposition for January 17, 2020 in Nashville, Tennessee. Garzon and Dorton are Lyft employees and so a deposition notice by itself is effective to compel their appearance. (Code Civ. Proc. ยงยง 2025.280, subd. (a); 2026.010, subd. (b).) Lyft objected that Garzon lives in Tennessee, and therefore the notice for the deposition in Los Angeles was defective.
STEVEN ANDREW KAMIN VS EDGAR ALEJANDRO AVILA-MARTINEZ ET AL
BC723507
Feb 25, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Any party may obtain discovery by taking an oral deposition in another state of the United States. The procedures for taking oral depositions in California apply to an oral deposition taken in another state. (Code of Civ. Proc., ยง 2026.010, subd. (a).)
JESSICA JANOS VS AMYLA BAGHDASARYAN ET AL
BC648111
Aug 22, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
On October 24, 2018, in ruling on Plaintiffโs motion to compel the deposition of Milestoneโs PMK, Guindy, the Court required that โDefendants . . . disclose Guindyโs location within five days such that Plaintiff can re-notice a deposition in accordance with Code Civ. Proc. ยง 2026.010(b). Should a location not be provided, Plaintiff can move for terminating sanctions.โ Since that time, Defendants have refused to disclose Guindyโs location, and Plaintiff now moves for terminating sanctions.
RAFIK Y KAMELL VS HANY BOUSHRA MOURICE GUINDY ET AL
BC667804
Jan 31, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Counsel should take measures to ensure that a speakerphone is available at the deposition and a reporter is present to record any dispute and the courtโs ruling on the matter. Sanctions in the amount of $900 will be awarded to the prevailing party. It should be noted that any issue as to privileges claimed by the nonresident witness is determined by the law of the place where the deposition is taken. (Code of Civ. Proc., ยง 2026.010(c).)
PACIFIC FUNDING ETC VS DAZ VINEYARDS ET AL
1314101
Jun 04, 2013
Santa Barbara County, CA
A party may take the deposition of a nonparty in another state in accordance with that state's laws. Code Civ. Proc., ยง 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.
ESTATE OF REBECCA ZAHAU VS. SHACKNAI
37-2013-00075418-CU-PO-CTL
Oct 20, 2016
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
The deposing party is not required to hire counsel in the deponents state to have the subpoena issued or present the matter to a judge in the deponents state before the subpoena can be issued. ( Id. , ยง 3, cmt. ยถ 4.) A party to a California action who wants to depose an out-of-state nonparty under the UIDDA should refer to that states version of the model act for the specific procedure to use. (See Code Civ. Proc., ยง 2026.010, subd.
NATALIE TOBAR OGANESYAN VS NORTH LIGHT SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
23STCP04635
Feb 26, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
AEROVIRONMENT INC VS. GABRIEL TORRES
56-2015-00465460-CU-BC-VTA
Jul 21, 2016
Ventura County, CA
Proc., ยง 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.
IBARRA VS. TECHNET PARTNERS, INC.
30-2018-00975519
Jul 16, 2020
Orange County, CA
Plaintiff moves to quash the deposition subpoena for production of Plaintiffโs employment records served by Defendants on an out of state entity Prudential Financial (โPrudentialโ). Defendants served the deposition subpoena at issue on September 17, 2018. (Pl. Ex. A.) Plaintiff filed the instant motion on October 10, 2018. On February 22, 2019, Defendants filed an opposition. On February 27, 2019, Plaintiff filed a reply.
JOSEPH M HUSMAN VS TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP ET AL
BC523358
Mar 07, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
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.
ESTATE OF REBECCA ZAHAU VS. SHACKNAI
37-2013-00075418-CU-PO-CTL
Mar 15, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
(Code of Civil Procedure, ยง 2026.010(c).) There is no evidence that non-party Michael Umina was served a deposition subpoena issued by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which is apparently required by that state to compel a person to attend a deposition. (See Cross-Complainantโs Exhibit 9.) Not having established proof of adequate service of the deposition subpoena and the demand to produce at deposition, the court has no authority to compel attendance at a deposition or compel production.
LUMINA V. UMINA
PC-20140399
May 04, 2017
El Dorado County, CA
Further, Defendantโs counselโs unavailability to attend Plaintiffโs August 25, 2020 deposition constitutes good cause for compelling a successive deposition pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.610. The Court also notes Plaintiffโs out-of-state residence does not deprive the Court of compelling Plaintiffโs deposition. (See Code Civ. Proc., ยง 2026.010, subd. (c).) Defendantโs request for $1,500.00 in sanctions for this straight-forward motion is unreasonable.
KARI DAVISON VS ARVIS DAVARPANAH
BC712450
Sep 09, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
CCP ยง 2034.410 states: โOn receipt of an expert witness list from a party, any other party may take the deposition of any person on the list. 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.โ
TONY FAITRO VS HOME DEPOT USA INC ET AL
BC686363
Jun 23, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Products Liability
On receipt of an expert witness list from a party, any other party may take the deposition of any person on the list. 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., ยง 2034.410.)
KEISHA ABDELKADER VS SARMEN MENA CHECAN ET AL
BC633360
May 16, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
(โDeponentโ) to produce the medical and billing records pertaining to Plaintiff Estela Hernandez pursuant to the subpoena duces tecum Defendant served on Deponentโs custodian of records. Deponent has not filed an opposition to the motion. ANALYSIS Defendant moves to enforce Deponentโs compliance with the subject subpoena under Code of Civil Procedures sections 1985 et seq., 2020 et seq., 2025 et seq., and Evidence Code section 1560.
ESTELA HERNANDEZ VS JAIME ZUCKERMAN
20STCV10078
Oct 20, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
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 Defendantโs subpoenas is defective, including the one to Accredo Specialty Pharmacy.
EMMA STONE VS THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.
20STCV40267
Jul 06, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
California has an interest "in deterring negligent design, production and sale of products" from companies within California, even if those products are also shipped out of state. (See Roulier, supra, 101 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1190โ1192.) If numerous other actions filed by California residents are simultaneously pending against the manufacturer, then those suits may "provide sufficient deterrence to prevent wrongful conduct in the future even if the suits filed by nonresident plaintiffs were tried elsewhere."
MITRIONE VS BREG INC
37-2019-00027996-CU-PL-CTL
Aug 05, 2021
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Products Liability
Legal Standard If a deponent resides in a state other than California and is a party to an action, service of a deposition notice is effective to compel that persons attendance at deposition within 75 miles of that persons residence or business office. (Code Civ. 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).)
JAIME DIAZ, AN INDIVIDUAL VS LIU MING SHING, AN INDIVIDUAL
21STCV39069
Feb 21, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Assuming the facts alleged in the moving points and authorities are shown to be true, the court would most likely rule as set forth below: Except as not applicable here, "if a deposition subpoena commands only the production of business records for copying, the custodian of the records or other qualified person shall, in person, by messenger, or by mail, deliver both of the following only to the deposition officer specified in the subpoena: [ยถ] (1) A true, legible, and durable copy of the records. [ยถ] (2) An
DORADO VS BALL & YORKE
56-2018-00510114-CU-PT-VTA
May 10, 2018
Ventura County, CA
(CCP ยง 2026.010(b).) (4) The deposition will be unreasonably cumulative and duplicative and Defendant has already offered to produce its Person Most Knowledgeable (โPMKโ). a. However, the deponent has signed all of the discovery verifications in this action. (See Opposition, Skanes Decl., ยถ 7 and Reply, Goldsmith Decl., ยถ 3, Exh. 2.) Thus, Plaintiff should be able to take his deposition concerning the sources for the discovery responses since he verified Defendantโs discovery in this case.
GRASSANO VS. FCA US LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
30-2019-01086011
Nov 01, 2020
Orange County, CA
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 ยง 2034.410.)
GUADALUPE RIVERA VS CHALIO BIRRIERIA
20STCV07834
Mar 02, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
There is no evidence that any out of state witness would be unwilling to testify in California. As for witnesses not willing to travel to California, it appears their testimony could be compelled (e.g., CCP ยง 2026.010 (c)), and Palecek does not argue that this is not the case.
KRISTY ORISON VS. PALECEK IMPORTS, INC.
C23-01837
Dec 15, 2023
Contra Costa County, CA
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 ยง 2034.410.)
GUADALUPE RIVERA VS CHALIO BIRRIERIA
20STCV07834
Mar 08, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The Court is not persuaded by Plaintiffs reference to the supervision requirement in Code of Civil Procedure section 2026.010(d)(1). (Reply at 5:3-26.)
ERNEST JOSEPH FRANCESCHI, JR. VS CHRISTOPHER BALDWIN, ET AL.
21STCV35596
Jul 20, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiffโs 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.
PLL,LLC VS. CARLTON GROUP,LTD. ET. AL.
SC121980
Sep 08, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
โIf the witness named in the subpoena does not reside or conduct business in this state, the department head may seek to compel the witnessโ 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.โ (Gov. Code, ยง 11187, subd. (c).)
DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA VS MOUSA ABDUL KAREEM EL TAYYEB
17CV03706
Oct 20, 2017
Santa Barbara County, CA
Defendants know how to obtain discovery from out-of-state medical providers, having obtained an order for issuance of a commission for deposition of one of the very out- of-state physicians for which defendants seek a HIPAA authorization. Also, defendants have made no attempt to obtain the requisite protective order. As for the alternative relief, it is not clear if defendants seek to obtain the out-of-state medical records directly from plaintiffs.
DEAN OPPERMAN ET AL VS PATRICIA WHEATLEY ET AL
1303726
Dec 08, 2009
Santa Barbara County, CA
Furthermore, as pointed out by the Supreme Court in McCann, โOklahoma's interest in the application of its statute of repose applies equally to out-of-state businesses that design improvements to real property located in Oklahoma and to Oklahoma businesses that design such improvements situated within that state.โ (Id. at 97.)
PERLA RENTERIA ET AL VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY ET AL
BC627446
Oct 05, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
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.โ
KYLE RUSTIN WALLING VS SAMUEL MORREALE, ET AL.
19STCV40858
Jul 19, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
The Fourth District came to a different conclusion in 1988, however, holding that ยง1989 does not apply to deponents, and an out-of-state resident can be compelled to appear for a deposition in California. Glass v. Superior Court (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 1048, 1053. Glass and Toyota represent an ongoing split in authority regarding the applicability of ยง1989 to out-of-state deposition witnesses. Since this court sits within the second district, Toyota applies here.
THEODORE DOZIER VS INTERSCOPE GEFFEN A&M RECORDS, ET AL.
18STCV02772
Jan 17, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Notice Of Motion And Motion To Quash Plaintiffs' Business Records Deposition Subpoena Of Out-Of-State Non-Party The matter is on calendar for Wednesday, June 27, 2018, Line 7, DEFENDANT TREES, LLC'S Notice Of Motion And Motion To Quash Plaintiffs' Business Records Deposition Subpoena Of Out-Of-State Non-Party. OFF CALENDAR per request of the moving party. =(302/JPT/RU)
ESTATE OF JORGE MOCTEZUMA GARCIA BY AND THROUGH ET AL VS. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY , A CALIFORNIA ET AL
CGC17559808
Jun 27, 2018
San Francisco County, CA
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.
INTERNATIONAL PATIENTS NETWORK INC VS MAISSAA MOUSA
BC572555
Apr 17, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
And Ryan Harris In Out Of State Action Hearing required. =302/HK
IN RE APPLICATION OF: VIVINT INC. A UTAH CORPORATION ET AL
CPF17515661
Jun 20, 2017
San Francisco County, CA
He also testified in deposition that he currently lives in Ohio and has resided there since March 2016. (Snyder Decl., Exh. C.) There is no dispute that Plaintiff lives out of state, and the Court concludes Plaintiff is an out-of-state resident for purposes of Section 1030. Defendant states there is a reasonable possibility that Defendant will prevail at trial because the investigating police officers determined that Plaintiff was a cause of the collision in violation of Vehicle Code section 22102.
JEREMY NAIL VS SERGEY GRIGORYAN ET AL
BC690533
Oct 18, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
DISCUSSION: CCP ยง2026.010(b) provides: โIf 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.โ
T S VS TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION
BC615438
Mar 23, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff is to appear for deposition within 20 days of entry of this order, at Defense counsel's office located at 10960 Wilshire Blvd., 18th Floor, in Los Angeles, California. Plaintiff failed to serve any written objection three calendar days prior to the date of his scheduled deposition, and thereby has waived any error or irregularity. (CCP ยงยง 2023.010, 2025.410(a), 2025.430, 2026.010(a).) Plaintiff is also subject to monetary sanctions.
ALFREDO LOPEZ VS MARTIN L BERMAN, ET AL.
22STCV20693
Feb 23, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Proc., ยงยง 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.
DANIEL SYNDEY ANDREWS VS SMART & FINAL, LLC, ET AL.
22TRCV00912
Feb 14, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Out-of-State Providers Defendants, in opposition to the motion, concede that it was not proper to attempt to obtain Plaintiffโs medical records from out-of-state providers by way of a deposition subpoena for production of business records. They have therefore withdrawn the two subpoenas directed to out-of-state medical providers, and the motion to quash those subpoenas is moot. 5.
ELEANORE ROSEN ET AL VS JOSHUA RIGGS ET AL
BC628452
Oct 05, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
Despite imposing additional, and arguably unreasonable burdens, on litigants faced with situations such as that facing Defendant herein, the statute allows deposition in the home state of the witness. Were Plaintiff to produce the out-of-state witness in this state, moreover, such as to testify at trial, then Defendant would have the opportunity to cross-examine him here.
WELLS FARGO BANK NA V. RODRIGUEZ
MCV-244294
Oct 19, 2018
Sonoma County, CA
โThe purpose of section 1030 is to protect California residents who are sued by out-of-state plaintiffs when there is no reasonable possibility the out-of-state plaintiff will prevail. The section protects California residents by requiring the out-of-state plaintiff to post security to ensure payment of costs and attorney fees (if recoverable) in the likely event the plaintiff's action is defeated. (Yao v. Superior Court (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 327, 333-334.) The motion may be made at any time.
CAMARA VS INLAND EMPIRE MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY IN
RIC2002005
Nov 26, 2021
Riverside County, CA
โThe purpose of section 1030 is to protect California residents who are sued by out-of-state plaintiffs when there is no reasonable possibility the out-of-state plaintiff will prevail. The section protects California residents by requiring the out-of-state plaintiff to post security to ensure payment of costs and attorney fees (if recoverable) in the likely event the plaintiff's action is defeated. (Yao v. Superior Court (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 327, 333-334.) The motion may be made at any time.
CAMARA VS INLAND EMPIRE MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY IN
RIC2002005
Nov 27, 2021
Riverside County, CA
โThe purpose of section 1030 is to protect California residents who are sued by out-of-state plaintiffs when there is no reasonable possibility the out-of-state plaintiff will prevail. The section protects California residents by requiring the out-of-state plaintiff to post security to ensure payment of costs and attorney fees (if recoverable) in the likely event the plaintiff's action is defeated. (Yao v. Superior Court (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 327, 333-334.) The motion may be made at any time.
CAMARA VS INLAND EMPIRE MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY IN
RIC2002005
Nov 25, 2021
day s
Riverside County, CA
โThe purpose of section 1030 is to protect California residents who are sued by out-of-state plaintiffs when there is no reasonable possibility the out-of-state plaintiff will prevail. The section protects California residents by requiring the out-of-state plaintiff to post security to ensure payment of costs and attorney fees (if recoverable) in the likely event the plaintiff's action is defeated. (Yao v. Superior Court (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 327, 333-334.) The motion may be made at any time.
CAMARA VS INLAND EMPIRE MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY IN
RIC2002005
Nov 29, 2021
Riverside County, CA
โThe purpose of section 1030 is to protect California residents who are sued by out-of-state plaintiffs when there is no reasonable possibility the out-of-state plaintiff will prevail. The section protects California residents by requiring the out-of-state plaintiff to post security to ensure payment of costs and attorney fees (if recoverable) in the likely event the plaintiff's action is defeated. (Yao v. Superior Court (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 327, 333-334.) The motion may be made at any time.
CAMARA VS INLAND EMPIRE MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY IN
RIC2002005
Nov 28, 2021
Riverside County, CA
Discussion Here, Showbiz assert s that with a recent addition of June Again, Inc. , recent information regarding Plaintiffs out-of-state treating providers , and continued delays in obtaining records because Plaintiff lives out of state and underwent treatment out of state, Showbiz requires more time to complete discovery prior to trial. Showbiz filed its Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint on November 19, 2021 and filed a cross-complaint against June Again, Inc. on the same day.
ROCHELLE SAVORY VS SHOWBIZ RESTROOMS, LLC
21STCV36399
Sep 21, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
As discussed below, the public and private interest factors might favor granting sanofiโs motion as to the out-of-state plaintiffs if McKesson were shown to be a nominal defendant. Consequently, the Court believes that a brief continuance to allow the parties to submit additional evidence on the issue of McKessonโs connection to the out-of- state plaintiffs is appropriate.
KLARA ERNYES-KOFLER, ET AL. V. SANOFI S.A., ET AL.
16-CV-303585
Apr 19, 2019
Santa Clara County, CA
REBECCA JUNE GROSSMAN, ET AL., Defendant(s). ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO: 21STCV01600 [TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF OUT-OF-STATE COMMISSION WITHOUT PREJUDICE Dept. 31 1:30 p.m. 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).
NANCY ISKANDER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO DECEDENT MARK ISKANDER, ET AL. VS REBECCA JUNE GROSSMAN, ET AL.
21STCV01600
Aug 08, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
In contrast to the foregoing, CCP ยง 2026.010 governs depositions in another state of the United States.
STEVEN ROTH VS NEIL RAPHAEL FINESTONE
BC539135
May 16, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.