What is an Out of State Discovery?

Useful Rulings on Out of State Discovery

Recent Rulings on Out of State Discovery

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

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

  • Hearing

STORMY HEBREW VS ROBERT FARHAT

California Code of Civil Procedure section 2026.010, subdivision (f) states the following: “[o]n request, the clerk of the court shall issue a commission authorizing the deposition in another state or place. The commission shall request that process issue in the place where the examination is to be held, requiring attendance and enforcing the obligations of the deponents to produce documents and electronically stored information and answer questions.

  • Hearing

GRASSANO VS. FCA US LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

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

  • Hearing

CINTORA VS BETOR

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

  • Hearing

KARI DAVISON VS ARVIS DAVARPANAH

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

  • Hearing

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

See CCP 2026.010.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

IBARRA VS. TECHNET PARTNERS, INC.

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.

  • Hearing

SALVATION INVESTMENT, LLC VS. MO MURRAYFIELD, LLC

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

  • Hearing

IBARRA VS. TECHNET PARTNERS, INC.

., § 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.

  • Hearing

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

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

  • Hearing

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

., § 2026.010(c).)

  • Hearing

LUMINA V. UMINA

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

  • Hearing

LUMINA V. UMINA

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

  • Hearing

DITLEVSEN V. PEDERSEN

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

  • Hearing

DITLEVSEN V. PEDERSEN

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

  • Hearing

STEVEN ANDREW KAMIN VS EDGAR ALEJANDRO AVILA-MARTINEZ ET AL

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

  • Hearing

SAWYERS VS BBD MASS TRANSIT CORP

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

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

SAWYERS VS BBD MASS TRANSIT CORP

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

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MICHAEL PARKS VS HUGH KNOWLTON

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

  • Hearing

PEOPLE EX. REL. CALONNE V. PINI

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

  • Hearing

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

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

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Serena R. Murillo

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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

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

  • Hearing

KUEHR VS. JOHNSTON

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

  • Hearing

LISA BURCH ET AL VS INTEX CORP ET AL

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

  • Hearing

BRENDA WEBB VS GREYHOUND LINES INC ET AL

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

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.