Understanding Out-of-State Deposition Laws in California

How Do California Laws Address Out-of-State Depositions?

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).) โ€œยง 1989 provides that โ€œ[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:

  1. whether the moving party filed the suit locally;
  2. whether the deponent will be present to testify at trial;
  3. the convenience of the deponent;
  4. the deponentโ€™s whereabouts at the time for which the deposition is scheduled;
  5. feasibility of conducting the depositions by written question or by discovery method other than a deposition;
  6. number of depositions sought to be taken beyond the geographic limits; and
  7. expense to each party in requiring them to take the deposition where the deponent resides.

(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 โ€œthat 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.

Rulings for Noticing Out of State Deposition in California

Guice, M.D., to Request Commission for Out-of-State Deposition and Records from Person Most Knowledgeable for Plaintiffโ€™s 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 courtโ€™s signature. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. ยง 2026.010(f).

  • Name

    MINA SALIB VS MICHAEL J GUICE M D ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC711161

  • Hearing

    Jun 05, 2019

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.

  • Name

    TABITHA MCCLAIN, ET AL. VS MITSUBISHI MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC.

  • Case No.

    22STCV35706

  • Hearing

    May 09, 2023

  • County

    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, โ€œOn request, the clerk of the court shall issue a commission authorizing the deposition in another state or place.

  • Name

    BRENDA WEBB VS GREYHOUND LINES INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC667750

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2019

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

  • Name

    KUEHR VS. JOHNSTON

  • Case No.

    MSC18-02562

  • Hearing

    Oct 25, 2019

Uniform Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act ยง6; CCP ยง2029.600(a). Plaintiffโ€™s 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, โ€œDepositions of opposing counsel are presumptively improper, severely restricted, and require โ€˜extremelyโ€™ good causeโ€”a high standard.โ€ (Carehouse Convalescent Hospital v.

  • Name

    DOE VS CORONA-NORCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    RIC1412607

  • Hearing

    Apr 10, 2017

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANTโ€™S 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 (โ€œPlaintiffโ€) filed this action against Defendant Fharlen Campbell (โ€œDefendantโ€) for motor vehicle and general negligence relating to a September 11, 2015 automobile accident.

  • Name

    CARMEN LARRACUENTE VS FHARLEN CAMPBELL

  • Case No.

    BC675100

  • Hearing

    Jan 23, 2019

  • County

    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 Farhatโ€™s motion to be heard on November 2, 2020. Trial is scheduled for January 26, 2021. PARTYโ€™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.

  • Name

    STORMY HEBREW VS ROBERT FARHAT

  • Case No.

    19STCV26648

  • Hearing

    Nov 02, 2020

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).

  • Name

    DAVID SPRINGER ET AL VS. ASBESTOS COMPANIES ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC20276849

  • Hearing

    Feb 25, 2021

  • County

    San Francisco County, CA

Motion to Quash Plaintiff TMH Roofing, Inc.โ€™s (โ€œPlaintiffโ€) Motion to stay and quash a deposition subpoena issued by defendant Roland O. Quintero (โ€œQuinteroโ€) 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.

  • Name

    TMH ROOFING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS ROLAND CONSTRUCTION SERVICE, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01101263

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2020

CASE NO: BC644258 [TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTโ€™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 Defendantโ€™s request.

  • Name

    JENNIFER TRYER ET AL VS TOY RUSSELL FIELDS III

  • Case No.

    BC644258

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2018

.: BC615604 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS FOR PLAINTIFFโ€™S OUT OF STATE MEDICAL, BILLING, AND RADIOGRAPHIC RECORDS Plaintiff Rod Messecaโ€™s Motion to Quash Subpoenas for Plaintiffโ€™s 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.

  • Name

    ROD MESSECA VS KRISTEN HUNSBERGER

  • Case No.

    BC615604

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2017

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).)

  • Name

    HODAYA ELFANT ET AL VS CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL CENTER ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC705704

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2019

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 Deponentโ€™s 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.

  • Name

    MICHAEL PARKS VS HUGH KNOWLTON

  • Case No.

    BC722532

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 2019

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.

  • Name

    SANDRA L COLLIGAN VS. IPAYMENT INC, ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC505570

  • Hearing

    Jan 31, 2017

California deposition subpoenas are only valid for depositions taken โ€œwithin 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.

  • Name

    HALE VS LISTREPORTS, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00914611-CU-WT-CJC

  • Hearing

    Aug 03, 2018

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.

  • Name

    ELENA SAINZ VS. 1 MOVER DEPOT INC

  • Case No.

    56-2012-00415718-CU-PO-VTA

  • Hearing

    Feb 19, 2013

. ยง 2026.010 requires that a party who wishes to take the deposition of an out-of-state non- party โ€œshall 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).)

  • Name

    RODRIGUEZ VS SUPER CENTER CONCEPTS, INC.

  • Case No.

    CVRI2304678

  • Hearing

    Dec 12, 2023

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

However, in the interest of judicial economy, the Court considers Plaintiffโ€™s 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).)

  • Name

    AMR HUSSEIN VS RUSTY ALLEN STARK ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC619243

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2019

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).)

  • Name

    GLOBAL HORIZONS INC VS KOOSHAREM CORPORATION ETC

  • Case No.

    1341206

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2010

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.

  • Name

    GLOBAL HORIZONS INC VS KOOSHAREM CORPORATION ETC

  • Case No.

    1341206

  • Hearing

    Aug 10, 2010

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.

  • Name

    MANH VS. NGUYEN

  • Case No.

    30-2014-00757464-CU-DF-CJC

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2017

As such, it is unclear whether Plaintiff seeks to compel a โ€œremoteโ€ deposition of Defendant in California or in Defendantโ€™s resident state of Texas. Neither party cites C.C.P. ยง 2026.010, yet that section is directly applicable to Plaintiffโ€™s 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.

  • Name

    CINTORA VS BETOR

  • Case No.

    30-2018-00984571

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2020

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].

  • Name

    JASON STEGER VS CSJ PROVIDENCE ST JOSEPH MEDICAL CENTER ET A

  • Case No.

    BC691050

  • Hearing

    Apr 15, 2022

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA VS BLACK EAGLE EXPRESS LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV25029

  • Hearing

    Oct 14, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

However, CCP ยง 2026.010(c) states that โ€œ[i]f the deponent is not a party to the action โ€ฆ, a party serving a deposition notice under this section shall use any process and procedures required and available under the laws of the state โ€ฆ 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].)

  • Name

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

  • Case No.

    30-2011-00449598-CU-BC-CXC

  • Hearing

    May 01, 2019

Plaintiff argues that Carfaxโ€™s 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 Safewayโ€™s 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).)

  • Name

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

  • Case No.

    18STLC05169

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Serena R. Murillo

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SEE CCP 2026.010(f).

  • Name

    VICKI WHITE ET AL VS WILLIAM GEORGE CUNDY JR

  • Case No.

    BC609052

  • Hearing

    Mar 28, 2018

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.

  • Name

    IBARRA VS. TECHNET PARTNERS, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2018-00975519

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2020

See CCP 2026.010.

  • Name

    ANTONY DAVID GASPARETTI VS INCLUSIVE DOES 1-10, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV00918

  • Hearing

    Aug 28, 2020

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.

  • Name

    YUKINARI YAMAMOTO VS COMMERCE WEST INSURANCE COMPANY

  • Case No.

    23STCV13811

  • Hearing

    Sep 19, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    LEWIS VS TOWNE CONSTRUCTION, INC.

  • Case No.

    37-2017-00022485-CU-PA-NC

  • Hearing

    Aug 23, 2018

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.

  • Name

    ANGEL GARIBAY VS. GARCIA MORTUARY LLC

  • Case No.

    56-2013-00442540-CU-BC-VTA

  • Hearing

    Jul 18, 2014

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 Johnsonโ€™s 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.

  • Name

    JAMES SEPEDA, JR VS. CHRISTOPHER BISPHAM

  • Case No.

    18CECG01500

  • Hearing

    Aug 22, 2018

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.

  • Name

    MICHAEL JOHNSON VS R&R AUCTION COMPANY LLC

  • Case No.

    1397046

  • Hearing

    Mar 27, 2015

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

  • Name

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

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01059265

  • Hearing

    Nov 01, 2019

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).

  • Name

    GALLO VS ANTHEM BLUE CROSS LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY

  • Case No.

    37-2017-00002516-CU-BT-NC

  • Hearing

    Jun 28, 2018

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, โ€œwhenever 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.

  • Name

    LISA BURCH ET AL VS INTEX CORP ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC683396

  • Hearing

    Jun 28, 2019

Jurisdiction Under CCP ยง 2026.010 CCP ยง 2026.010, subdivision (c), provides: โ€œIf 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

  • Name

    MATTHIAS LENZ VS CPP KIMBALL LLC

  • Case No.

    17STCP00004

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2017

  • Judge

    Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    JANE DOE VS LUIS DIAZ ROJAS

  • Case No.

    22STCV41020

  • Hearing

    Jan 03, 2024

  • County

    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, โ€œwhenever 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.

  • Name

    LISA BURCH ET AL VS INTEX CORP ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC683396

  • Hearing

    Aug 02, 2019

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

  • Name

    DEAN OPPERMAN ET AL VS PATRICIA WHEATLEY ET AL

  • Case No.

    1303726

  • Hearing

    Nov 24, 2009

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.

  • Name

    ROBERT PARKER VS LISANDRO CHAMORRO ET AL

  • Case No.

    1416980

  • Hearing

    Aug 26, 2014

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.

  • Name

    SAWYERS VS BBD MASS TRANSIT CORP

  • Case No.

    37-2018-00046442-CU-WT-NC

  • Hearing

    Feb 13, 2020

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.

  • Name

    PRESTON SMITH, ET AL. VS DOES 1 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE

  • Case No.

    22STCV23880

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2022

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    AARON WILLIAM ELAM VS NWAFOR ENTERPRISES INC.,

  • Case No.

    KC067742

  • Hearing

    Dec 15, 2016

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 outโ€”it is blank. As Defendant did not use Arizonaโ€™s process and procedures, and used a California subpoena, the subpoena is invalid.

  • Name

    GRIFFITHE VS SAMEC

  • Case No.

    CVRI2201133

  • Hearing

    Jul 25, 2023

  • County

    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 Nevadaโ€™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 ยง2020.220.)

  • Name

    GRIFFITHE VS SAMEC

  • Case No.

    CVRI2201133

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2023

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

Estacion Foundation Internationalโ€™s 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.

  • Name

    MORGAN VS. ESTACION

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00840248-CU-NP-CJC

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2017

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.

  • Name

    J.E. GROUP, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL. VS CSM SYCAMORE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV48660

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2023

  • County

    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 Plaintiffโ€™s 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.

  • Name

    BARBARA CARRION ET AL VS LAUREN COOPER ET AL

  • Case No.

    19CV02162

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

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.

  • Name

    QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART AND SULLIVAN LLP VS DARWIN DEASON

  • Case No.

    BC651090

  • Hearing

    May 22, 2018

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 โ€œnotwithstanding 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

  • Name

    THUNDERBUTTE ENTERPRISES, LLC V. GENERAL STAR INDEMNITY CO.

  • Case No.

    PC-20160539

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2018

Garzon and Dorton Plaintiff noticed Garzonโ€™s deposition was noticed for January 17, 2020 in Los Angeles, California and Dortonโ€™s 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.

  • Name

    STEVEN ANDREW KAMIN VS EDGAR ALEJANDRO AVILA-MARTINEZ ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC723507

  • Hearing

    Feb 25, 2020

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).)

  • Name

    JESSICA JANOS VS AMYLA BAGHDASARYAN ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC648111

  • Hearing

    Aug 22, 2018

On October 24, 2018, in ruling on Plaintiffโ€™s motion to compel the deposition of Milestoneโ€™s PMK, Guindy, the Court required that โ€œDefendants . . . disclose Guindyโ€™s 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 Guindyโ€™s location, and Plaintiff now moves for terminating sanctions.

  • Name

    RAFIK Y KAMELL VS HANY BOUSHRA MOURICE GUINDY ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC667804

  • Hearing

    Jan 31, 2019

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 courtโ€™s 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).)

  • Name

    PACIFIC FUNDING ETC VS DAZ VINEYARDS ET AL

  • Case No.

    1314101

  • Hearing

    Jun 04, 2013

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.

  • Name

    ESTATE OF REBECCA ZAHAU VS. SHACKNAI

  • Case No.

    37-2013-00075418-CU-PO-CTL

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2016

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.

  • Name

    NATALIE TOBAR OGANESYAN VS NORTH LIGHT SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

  • Case No.

    23STCP04635

  • Hearing

    Feb 26, 2024

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    AEROVIRONMENT INC VS. GABRIEL TORRES

  • Case No.

    56-2015-00465460-CU-BC-VTA

  • Hearing

    Jul 21, 2016

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.

  • Name

    IBARRA VS. TECHNET PARTNERS, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2018-00975519

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

Plaintiff moves to quash the deposition subpoena for production of Plaintiffโ€™s employment records served by Defendants on an out of state entity Prudential Financial (โ€œPrudentialโ€). 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.

  • Name

    JOSEPH M HUSMAN VS TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC523358

  • Hearing

    Mar 07, 2019

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.

  • Name

    ESTATE OF REBECCA ZAHAU VS. SHACKNAI

  • Case No.

    37-2013-00075418-CU-PO-CTL

  • Hearing

    Mar 15, 2017

(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-Complainantโ€™s 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.

  • Name

    LUMINA V. UMINA

  • Case No.

    PC-20140399

  • Hearing

    May 04, 2017

Further, Defendantโ€™s counselโ€™s unavailability to attend Plaintiffโ€™s 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 Plaintiffโ€™s out-of-state residence does not deprive the Court of compelling Plaintiffโ€™s deposition. (See Code Civ. Proc., ยง 2026.010, subd. (c).) Defendantโ€™s request for $1,500.00 in sanctions for this straight-forward motion is unreasonable.

  • Name

    KARI DAVISON VS ARVIS DAVARPANAH

  • Case No.

    BC712450

  • Hearing

    Sep 09, 2020

CCP ยง 2034.410 states: โ€œOn 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€

  • Name

    TONY FAITRO VS HOME DEPOT USA INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC686363

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    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.)

  • Name

    KEISHA ABDELKADER VS SARMEN MENA CHECAN ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC633360

  • Hearing

    May 16, 2019

(โ€œDeponentโ€) to produce the medical and billing records pertaining to Plaintiff Estela Hernandez pursuant to the subpoena duces tecum Defendant served on Deponentโ€™s custodian of records. Deponent has not filed an opposition to the motion. ANALYSIS Defendant moves to enforce Deponentโ€™s 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.

  • Name

    ESTELA HERNANDEZ VS JAIME ZUCKERMAN

  • Case No.

    20STCV10078

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2021

  • County

    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 Defendantโ€™s subpoenas is defective, including the one to Accredo Specialty Pharmacy.

  • Name

    EMMA STONE VS THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV40267

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2021

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. 1190โ€“1192.) 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."

  • Name

    MITRIONE VS BREG INC

  • Case No.

    37-2019-00027996-CU-PL-CTL

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2021

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).)

  • Name

    JAIME DIAZ, AN INDIVIDUAL VS LIU MING SHING, AN INDIVIDUAL

  • Case No.

    21STCV39069

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2023

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

  • Name

    DORADO VS BALL & YORKE

  • Case No.

    56-2018-00510114-CU-PT-VTA

  • Hearing

    May 10, 2018

(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 (โ€œPMKโ€). 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 Defendantโ€™s discovery in this case.

  • Name

    GRASSANO VS. FCA US LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01086011

  • Hearing

    Nov 01, 2020

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.)

  • Name

    GUADALUPE RIVERA VS CHALIO BIRRIERIA

  • Case No.

    20STCV07834

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    KRISTY ORISON VS. PALECEK IMPORTS, INC.

  • Case No.

    C23-01837

  • Hearing

    Dec 15, 2023

  • County

    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.)

  • Name

    GUADALUPE RIVERA VS CHALIO BIRRIERIA

  • Case No.

    20STCV07834

  • Hearing

    Mar 08, 2023

  • County

    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.)

  • Name

    ERNEST JOSEPH FRANCESCHI, JR. VS CHRISTOPHER BALDWIN, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV35596

  • Hearing

    Jul 20, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Plaintiffโ€™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.

  • Name

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

  • Case No.

    SC121980

  • Hearing

    Sep 08, 2017

โ€œIf 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).)

  • Name

    DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA VS MOUSA ABDUL KAREEM EL TAYYEB

  • Case No.

    17CV03706

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2017

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.

  • Name

    DEAN OPPERMAN ET AL VS PATRICIA WHEATLEY ET AL

  • Case No.

    1303726

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2009

Furthermore, as pointed out by the Supreme Court in McCann, โ€œOklahoma'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.)

  • Name

    PERLA RENTERIA ET AL VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC627446

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2017

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€

  • Name

    KYLE RUSTIN WALLING VS SAMUEL MORREALE, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV40858

  • Hearing

    Jul 19, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    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.

  • Name

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

  • Case No.

    18STCV02772

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2020

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)

  • Name

    ESTATE OF JORGE MOCTEZUMA GARCIA BY AND THROUGH ET AL VS. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY , A CALIFORNIA ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC17559808

  • Hearing

    Jun 27, 2018

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.

  • Name

    INTERNATIONAL PATIENTS NETWORK INC VS MAISSAA MOUSA

  • Case No.

    BC572555

  • Hearing

    Apr 17, 2017

And Ryan Harris In Out Of State Action Hearing required. =302/HK

  • Name

    IN RE APPLICATION OF: VIVINT INC. A UTAH CORPORATION ET AL

  • Case No.

    CPF17515661

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2017

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.

  • Name

    JEREMY NAIL VS SERGEY GRIGORYAN ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC690533

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2019

DISCUSSION: CCP ยง2026.010(b) provides: โ€œIf 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€

  • Name

    T S VS TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    BC615438

  • Hearing

    Mar 23, 2018

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.

  • Name

    ALFREDO LOPEZ VS MARTIN L BERMAN, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV20693

  • Hearing

    Feb 23, 2024

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    DANIEL SYNDEY ANDREWS VS SMART & FINAL, LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22TRCV00912

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Out-of-State Providers Defendants, in opposition to the motion, concede that it was not proper to attempt to obtain Plaintiffโ€™s 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.

  • Name

    ELEANORE ROSEN ET AL VS JOSHUA RIGGS ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC628452

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2016

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.

  • Name

    WELLS FARGO BANK NA V. RODRIGUEZ

  • Case No.

    MCV-244294

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2018

โ€œThe 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.

  • Name

    CAMARA VS INLAND EMPIRE MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY IN

  • Case No.

    RIC2002005

  • Hearing

    Nov 26, 2021

โ€œThe 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.

  • Name

    CAMARA VS INLAND EMPIRE MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY IN

  • Case No.

    RIC2002005

  • Hearing

    Nov 27, 2021

โ€œThe 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.

  • Name

    CAMARA VS INLAND EMPIRE MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY IN

  • Case No.

    RIC2002005

  • Hearing

    Nov 25, 2021

  • Judge

    day s

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

โ€œThe 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.

  • Name

    CAMARA VS INLAND EMPIRE MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY IN

  • Case No.

    RIC2002005

  • Hearing

    Nov 29, 2021

โ€œThe 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.

  • Name

    CAMARA VS INLAND EMPIRE MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY IN

  • Case No.

    RIC2002005

  • Hearing

    Nov 28, 2021

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.

  • Name

    ROCHELLE SAVORY VS SHOWBIZ RESTROOMS, LLC

  • Case No.

    21STCV36399

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

As discussed below, the public and private interest factors might favor granting sanofiโ€™s 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 McKessonโ€™s connection to the out-of- state plaintiffs is appropriate.

  • Name

    KLARA ERNYES-KOFLER, ET AL. V. SANOFI S.A., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    16-CV-303585

  • Hearing

    Apr 19, 2019

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).

  • Name

    NANCY ISKANDER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO DECEDENT MARK ISKANDER, ET AL. VS REBECCA JUNE GROSSMAN, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV01600

  • Hearing

    Aug 08, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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

  • Name

    STEVEN ROTH VS NEIL RAPHAEL FINESTONE

  • Case No.

    BC539135

  • Hearing

    May 16, 2017

Please wait a moment while we load this page.

New Envelope