What is a Subpoena?

In civil litigation, subpoenas are often used to compel discovery from nonparties to a suit such as individuals or corporations. In a California proceeding, a deposition subpoena is the only method by which to obtain discovery from a non-party in civil litigation. “A deposition subpoena must be served to compel that witness’s attendance, testimony, or production of documents and things pursuant to Chapter 6, ‘Nonparty Discovery,’ of the CDA.” (CCP §§ 2020.010-2020.510. See, e.g., California ex rel Lockyer v. Super. Ct., 122 Cal. App. 4th 1060, 1076-78 (2004).)

The California Civil Code allows an oral deposition, written deposition, or a deposition for production of business records and other things coming within the scope of Article 4 or 5. (CCP § 2020.010.) The process by which a nonparty is required to provide discovery is a deposition subpoena. (Id.) However, subpoenas are still subject to the rules regulating discovery between parties of a suit.

Any party is entitled to discovery proceedings up until the 30th day before the date initially set for the trial of the action and a continuance of the trial date does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings. (CCP § 2024.020.)

There are four types of deposition subpoenas: a subpoena for an oral deposition, a subpoena for business records deposition commanding only the production of business records for copying, a subpoena for business records deposition commanding the productions of records and testimony, and finally, a subpoena for a written deposition. (CCP §§ 2020.310, 2025.010, 2020.410, 2020.510, 2028.010.6.)

If the subpoena is for the production of business records, discovery will be considered complete on the date of production. (CCP § 2020.010.) However, if the subpoena is seeking personal records under CCP § 1985.3 then there needs to be at least 20 days’ notice. (CCP § 1985.3; see Unzipped Apparel v. Bader, 156 Cal.App.4th 123, 127 (2007).)

The Court is authorized under CCP § 1987.1 to order a subpoena quashed entirely, modified, or directed to comply with terms and conditions the Court declares, including protective orders. (CCP § 1987.1.) Under this section the court is also authorized to make any order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person. (Id.)

“If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent’s control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.” (CCP § 2025.480, subd. (a).) The court can order the disobeying party to comply within 60 days after completion of the deposition record. (Id.) Objections or other responses to a business records subpoena are the "deposition record" for purposes of measuring the 60-day period for a motion to compel. (See Unzipped Apparel, 156 Cal.App.4th at 132-133.)

Useful Resources for Subpoena

Recent Rulings on Subpoena

26-50 of 9234 results

AJILA MONIQUE HARRIS, AN INDIVIDUAL VS TESLA, ENTITY TYPE UNKNOWN, ET AL.

A deposition subpoena may request (1) only the attendance and testimony of a deponent, (2) only the production of business records for copying, or (3) the attendance and testimony, as well as the production of business records. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.020.) The court, upon motion or the court’s own motion, “may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

LILIA NILA GARCIA, ET AL. VS RAFAEL RODRIGUEZ ZAVALZA, ET AL.

On 11/23/20, Plaintiffs served a subpoena on Lemus Medical Center (“Lemus”) requesting medical records pertaining to Defendant Zavalza. Defendants move to quash the subject subpoena.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

JEFFREY MOR, IN AND THROUGH HIS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST, JEFFREY S.REISBECK, ET AL. VS MONTROSE SPRINGS SKILLED NURSING & WELLNESS CENTER, ET AL.

Defendants’ Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena to Genevieve Bautista and Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena to Terri Hansen, RN TENTATIVE RULINGS: Defendants’ Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena to Genevieve Bautista is DENIED. Both parties’ requests for sanctions are DENIED. Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena to Terri Hansen, RN is GRANTED. Both parties’ requests for sanctions are DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

VEHANOOSH GRIGORIAN VS. ALEX MEGEREDCHIAN ET AL

Plaintiff’s Motion for an OSC Re Order to Compel Compliance with Subpoena for Attendance and Testimony Against Robert Ter-Oganesyan is STAYED. Matter is reset for hearing/rescheduling to convenient date in July 2021.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

AMINLOO VS. AMERIPRISE AUTO & HOME INSURANCE

Claimant Peyman Aminloo Motion to Quash Subpoena The court grants Claimant’s Motion to Quash the Subpoena directed to the Irvine Police Department. Sanctions are denied. Respondent seeks documents relating to other car accidents. Respondent acknowledges that it does not want records criminal in nature. (Opp., 2:28-3:4.) However, the Subpoena does not limit records sought to prior car accidents or the accident at issue in the arbitration.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

TONTI V. CAPO BY THE SEA, INC.

There is no evidence of any objections to the subpoena, any motion to quash the subpoena, nor any evidence a deposition actually went forward with objections lodged therein. Capo’s motion to compel compliance pursuant to CCP § 1987.1, is therefore proper. None of Plaintiff’s arguments are persuasive. As no deposition was taken and no responses were ever made to the subpoena, no separate statement or prior meet and confer are necessary. CRC Rule 3.1345(b)(1) and CCP § 2025.480.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

MRC II DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, L.P., A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP VS DE PACIFIC 9665, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Legal Standard “If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent's control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480(a)).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

STEVE CANCHOLA, ET AL. V. MERRILL & ASSOCIATES REAL ESTATE, ET AL.

On June 17, 2020, Kleck served an individual Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records (the “Subpoenas”) on nonparties Dean Stroud and Lynn Stroud (the “Strouds”). Lynn Stroud is Plaintiff Lisa Canchola’s sister. The Strouds live next door to Plaintiffs and in August 2018, also filed an action in connection with their own property against some of these same Defendants (Case No. 18CVP-0295).

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

AMANDA ALVIRA VS CHRISTA CRAFTON

Crafton On the Court's own motion, Hearing on Motion for Order to Enforce Subpoena Duces Tecum for Records Regarding Plaintiff Amanda Alvira From Healthpointe Medical Group, Inc; Request for Costs and Fees Against the Non-Responsive Facility, Filed by the Defendant scheduled for 01/20/2021 is continued to 01/29/2021 at 01:30 PM in Department 29 at Spring Street Courthouse. Moving Party is ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ABRAHAM ANTONIO ROMERO ARTEAGA VS KEVIN MADISON CROW, ET AL.

LEGAL STANDARD California Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1, subdivision (a) states, “[i]f a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), or upon the court’s own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

CYNTHIA L CONNER, ET AL. VS LYFT, INC., ET AL.

LEGAL AUTHORITY CCP §2025.480 states: “(a) If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, . . . that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production. (b) The motion shall be made no later than 60 days after the completion of the record of the deposition, and shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. . . .

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

WYNNE VS WYNNE

The Subpoena requests all bank statements and documents relating to the deposits, wire transfers, ACH transfers and checks from 1-1-18 to present for the subject bank account of the Tatums (“Category 1”). The Subpoena also requests documents related to certain cashier checks. A Notice of Service of Subpoena Duces Tecum was served on the Tatums. Tatums move to quash or modify the Subpoena.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

LARRY CURLEE V. JOHN E. ODUM

Plaintiff served on Coalinga State Hospital (CSH) a civil subpoena duces tecum for personal appearance and production of documents, electronically stored information, and things (the Subpoena). Plaintiff requested that the deponent provide the requested documents to him by October 1, 2020, in lieu of appearing for a deposition.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

SMITH VS. AMERICOR FUNDING, INC.

Ruling Motion 4) Defendant/Cross-Complainant’s Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena of Third-Party Ron Kort is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1.) Defendant/Cross-Complainant Americor Funding, Inc. moves to quash the deposition subpoena served on non-party Ron Kort, the legal assistant for Defendant’s counsel. For the following reasons, Defendant’s motion is granted.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

MARK ANTHONY RAMOS ET AL VS ANZO NOBEL COATINGS INC ET AL

Plaintiffs move to reduce PPG’s costs bill from $8,352.73 to $6,801.09, targeting the following items: $513.75 in filing and motion fees for a duplicative charge for PPG’s only motion for summary judgment (Motion at p. 4); $330.00 for a “filing fee” for a deposition subpoena issued against one Odis Freeman in Las Vegas, Nevada; $170.89 for the service of process upon Odis Freeman, who was not deposed (Motion at p. 5); $495.00 for a court reporter fee at the hearing for PPG’s motion for summary judgment (

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY EMPLOYEE RELATIO

ERCOM has investigative authority, including the power to subpoena documents and compel testimony. See LACC §5.04.160(G), (H). California courts require ERCOM to exercise its authority in a manner “consistent with and pursuant to” the policies of the MMBA as interpreted and administered by the Public Employment Relations Board (“PERB”)—the state administrative agency charged with interpreting and administering the MMBA in other parts of California. Gov. Code § 3509(d); Cnty. of Los Angeles v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

SMITH VS. AMERICOR FUNDING, INC.

Ruling Motion 4) Defendant/Cross-Complainant’s Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena of Third-Party Ron Kort is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1.) Defendant/Cross-Complainant Americor Funding, Inc. moves to quash the deposition subpoena served on non-party Ron Kort, the legal assistant for Defendant’s counsel. For the following reasons, Defendant’s motion is granted.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

SMITH VS. AMERICOR FUNDING, INC.

Ruling Motion 4) Defendant/Cross-Complainant’s Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena of Third-Party Ron Kort is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1.) Defendant/Cross-Complainant Americor Funding, Inc. moves to quash the deposition subpoena served on non-party Ron Kort, the legal assistant for Defendant’s counsel. For the following reasons, Defendant’s motion is granted.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

HONGMEI (RACHEL) JIN VS ASHLEY LIU, ET AL.

For instance, Defendant has not shown that those same records are not obtainable by Defendant serving a subpoena on the same financial institutions. In that same vein, Defendant does not sufficiently establish that the information it seeks from Bin Li is crucial to the preparation of the case.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JANE DOE VS TRANSDEV SERVICES, INC., ET AL.

The Motion is brought on the grounds that when Transdev subpoenaed the police file relevant to this action, the Sheriff’s Department did not comply with the subpoena, and advised that a subpoena signed by a judge was required to obtain a copy of the police file. Due to the lack of opposition, the Court GRANTS the Motion. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) Moving parties are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

WORLD LAB U.S.A., INC. V. YAMAKAWA

In the absence of personal service of the motion to compel on the nonparty deponent, the court cannot issue an effective order granting the motion to compel the nonparty to appear for deposition in compliance with a subpoena. Here, the only declaration of personal service filed by Plaintiff is by a person in counsel’s office, to the effect that the package was given to a messenger to deliver. The declaration was insufficient. (See Proof of Service [Gass Decl.]; Weil & Brown, Cal.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

CARCHEMISH HAWKINS VS, DONTE GREER, ET AL

the motion to quash the subpoena for employment records from Amazon.com Services LLC, and $810 for bringing the motion to quash the subpoena for body cam footage from the Marin County Sheriff‘s Department.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

IGOR BRYANTSEV VS ADAM CAMACHO

Proc. § 1992 for disobeying the subpoena. Moving party is ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

ALFRED L. CARR VS LESLIE ANNE CALDWELL

RULING: Defendant’s Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records is MOOT in light of the indication in the opposition that the subject subpoena has since been withdrawn. Or Defendant’s Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records is GRANTED at the concession in the opposition that plaintiff intends that the subpoena be withdrawn.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

LISA GOODRICH VS GUILLERMO EDUARDO PADILLA JR ET AL

Relief is sought under CCP section 2025.480(a), which provides: “(a) If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent’s control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.”

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 370     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.