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

8951-8975 of 9209 results

IN THE MATTER OF ERNEST KUHN TRUST DATED SEPTEMBER 9 2009

Here, per the Kramer declaration, the only communication that was sent relative to this dispute involved to an earlier subpoena as to which Mr. Eyrich demanded be withdrawn. As to the subpoena in issue, there is no suggestion of a follow-up letter, a telephone call, no issues raised as to overbreadth, attorney-client privilege or privacy.... just a motion to quash. As observed in Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.

  • Hearing

    May 19, 2011

  • Type

    Probate

  • Sub Type

    Trust

DR. ANTHONY K. HUI, D.D. DBA PINE STREET VS. DOES NO. 1, AN INDIVIDUAL ET AL

Ntc Of Motion And Motion To Compel Responses To Pltfs Thirsd Party Subpoena ; Request For Monetary Sanctions; Seperate Statement; Decclaration Set for hearing on Thursday, May 19, 2011, line 4, PLAINTIFF DR. ANTHONY K. HUI, D.C. DBA PINE STREET Motion To Compel Responses To Plaintiffs Thirsd Party Subpoena ; Request For Monetary Sanctions. MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S 3RD PARTY SUBPOENA IS DENIED. THESE MATERIALS ARE PROTECTED UNDER INS. CODE SECTION 12919, INS.

  • Hearing

    May 19, 2011

JESSIE DAVIS AND JAMES DAVIS

Analysis: This case was continued from 4/26 by the parties; the Court could have tried the case in the week of 4/26; moving attorney has a very busy calendar and is “out of state” for the entire week of May 9; Jessie’s attorney intends to present testimony of Jessie, James, and declarant Pam Mannix; he has filed a notice to appear in lieu of a subpoena.

  • Hearing

    May 17, 2011

KATHRYN DAVIS VS. HUMPHREY, GIACOPUZZI & ASSOCIATES EQUINE HOSPITAL

However, the information may be disclosed at the request of the owner or in response to a valid court order or subpoena. Section 4857(a)(3). Plaintiff cites Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assoc. which involved drug testing of college athletes with reduced expectations of privacy. The court discussed the tort cause of action for invasion of privacy and stated that "We decline to hold that every assertion of privacy interest under Article 1, section 1, must be overcome by a "compelling interest."

  • Hearing

    May 12, 2011

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

DAVID YANG ET AL VS. FOLSOM/ FIRST LLC A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ET AL

Notice Of Motion To Quash Defts Deposition Subpoena For Production Of Business Records, Issued To U.S. Bank; And For Protective Order; And For Sanctions Set for hearing on Wednesday, May 11, 2011, line 2, PLAINTIFF DAVID YANG, MIMI YANG Motion To Quash Defendants Deposition Subpoena For Production Of Business Records, Issued To U.S. Bank; And For Protective Order; And For Sanctions. PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM U.S. BANK AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER DENIED.

  • Hearing

    May 11, 2011

JAMES S. MADOW, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF HIS VS. POST CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, L.P., A CALIFORNIA ET AL

Notice Of Motion For An Order Directing Third-Party Deponent South Bay Real Estate Commerce Group, Llc, To Comply With Deposition Subpoena And For An Order That South Bay Real Estate Commerce Group, Llc, Show Cause Why It Should Not Be Held In Contempt Of Court By Reason Of Its Failure To Appear For Deposition Set for hearing on Wednesday, May 11, 2011, line 4, PLAINTIFF JAMES S.

  • Hearing

    May 11, 2011

LYNN HELVIG VS. BAYLEY CONSTRUCTION INC

A , the subpoena duces tecum to the custodian of records is attached. Where production of business records only are sought , CCP §2025.280(b) provides that the deponent would be the custodian of records. (See Unzipped Apparel LLC v. Bader (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 123.) Here, however, the subpoena was served not by Defendant Bayley Construction Inc. or its lawsyers but by an agent "First Record Retrieval."

  • Hearing

    May 11, 2011

DR. ANTHONY K. HUI, D.D. DBA PINE STREET VS. DOES NO. 1, AN INDIVIDUAL ET AL

Ntc Of Motion And Motion To Compel Responses To Pltfs Thirsd Party Subpoena ; Request For Monetary Sanctions; Seperate Statement; Decclaration Set for hearing on Tuesday, May 10, 2011, line 4, PLAINTIFF DR. ANTHONY K. HUI, D.C. DBA PINE STREET Motion To Compel Responses To Plaintiffs Thirsd Party Subpoena ; Request For Monetary Sanctions. CONTINUED TO MAY 13, 2011 ON COURT'S OWN MOTION. =(302/LMG)

  • Hearing

    May 10, 2011

GABRIELA FLORES ET AL VS. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY ET AL

MOTION TO QUASH PLAINTIFFS' DEPOSITION SUBPOENA OF OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL UNION NO. 3 IS GRANTED. PLAINTIFF MUST REVISE THE SUBPOENA TO REQUEST SPECIFIC INFORMATION DIRECTLY RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE OF DEFENDANT'S STATUS AS AN EMPLOYEE OR INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. THE REMAINING SUBPOENAS HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN BY PLAINTIFF. =(302/LMG)

  • Hearing

    May 10, 2011

STEVEN PAPPAS VS DOREEN FARR

(Subpoena to Woocher, request 1; Subpoena to Seymour, request 1.) “Copies of all time records maintained for legal services and costs rendered related to the litigation seeking legal fees and costs from Steve Pappas.” (Subpoena to Woocher, request 2; Subpoena to Seymour, request 2.) “Copies of all billing statements, invoices and requests for payment of your legal fees related to the Pappas vs Farr litigation.” (Subpoena to Woocher, request 6.)

  • Hearing

    May 09, 2011

DENISE KLASSEN AND DANIEL LAUNSPACH

To Petitioner: On May 2 the Court was faxed a motion to quash a subpoena that was served on the Respondent; the Court has not heard from the Petitioner on the issue and will reserve a ruling for now; it is an issue we need to address at the hearing on 5/3.

  • Hearing

    May 03, 2011

RICHARD STEINER ET AL VS ADVANCE AUTO PARTS ET AL

On 4/4/11 plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to quash the subpoena of taking the videotaped trial preservation testimony and deposition of Jackson Steiner, a minor, age 13.

  • Hearing

    May 03, 2011

ALAN POOLE VS. XXXXXXXXXXXX ET AL

Ntc Of Motion To Quash Depo Subpoena For Production Of Business Records From U.S. Bank; Request For Monetary Sanction Set for hearing on Monday, May 2, 2011, line 2. DEFENDANTS xxxxxxxxxxxx, xxxxxxxx xxxxx'S Motion To Quash Depo Subpoena For Production Of Business Records From U.S. Bank; Request For Monetary Sanction. Granted, no opposition filed. Plaintiff Poole to pay defendants $750 in sanctions within 15 days of notice of entry of this order. =(302/REQ)

  • Hearing

    May 02, 2011

ALAN POOLE VS. DMITRY YESIN ET AL

Ntc Of Motion To Quash Depo Subpoena For Production Of Business Records From Banc Of America; Request For Monetary Sanction Set for hearing on Monday, May 2, 2011, line 2. DEFENDANTS DMITRY YESIN, SVETLANA YESIN'S Motion To Quash Depo Subpoena For Production Of Business Records From Banc Of America; Request For Monetary Sanction. Granted, no opposition filed. Plaintiff Poole to pay defendants $750 in sanctions within 15 days of notice of entry of this order. =(302/REQ)

  • Hearing

    May 02, 2011

DR. ANTHONY K. HUI, D.D. DBA PINE STREET VS. DOES NO. 1, AN INDIVIDUAL ET AL

Ntc Of Motion And Motion To Compel Responses To Pltfs Thirsd Party Subpoena ; Request For Monetary Sanctions; Seperate Statement; Decclaration Set for hearing on Wednesday, April 27, 2011. Line 4. PLAINTIFF DR. ANTHONY K. HUI, D.C. DBA PINE STREET'S Notice Of Motion And Motion To Compel Responses To Plaintiffs Third Party Subpoena and Request For Monetary Sanctions. Continued to 5/10/11 per request of the moving party. = (302/LMG)

  • Hearing

    Apr 27, 2011

MAGNOLIA MARTINEZ VS. JAVA ON OCEAN COFFEE HOUSE ET AL

Ntc And Motion To Quash The Subpoena To Michelle Gomez Set for hearing on Wednesday, April 27, 2011. Line 3. PLAINTIFF MAGNOLIA MARTINEZ'S Notice of motion And Motion To Quash The Subpoena To Michelle Gomez. Motion to quash the subpoena to MIchelle Gomez for plaintiffs employment records, specifically performance evaluations, is Denied.

  • Hearing

    Apr 27, 2011

RICHARD STEINER ET AL VS ADVANCE AUTO PARTS ET AL

NOTE TO COUNSEL: The Court finds in the file, plaintiffs’ motion filed on 4/4/11 to quash the deposition subpoena on Jackson Steiner (a minor) with a hearing date of 4/26 on the caption; there is an “amended motion” filed on 4/5 re-setting essentially the same motion for 5/3; there is no response filed; the Court believes that issue was resolved and that the deposition of the minor did in fact go forward and the motion to quash and a motion for a protective order set for 5/3 is off calendar.

  • Hearing

    Apr 26, 2011

LAURA THURSTON VS CITY OF SANTA BARBARA ET AL

Crumpley was the project manager and his testimony could have been compelled by subpoena like a treating physician and, therefore, his costs are not chargeable under CCP § 998. Opposition: Defendant argues: Expert fees pursuant to CCP § 998 are not tied to when the fees were incurred relative to the compromise offer. When items appearing in a cost bill appear to be proper charges, plaintiff has the burden to show that costs are not reasonable or necessary.

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2011

EMERGING GROWTH RESEARCH, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED, ET AL. VS. DOES 1 THOUGH 25, INCLUSIVE

Notice Of Motion To Quash Subpoena Set for hearing on Tuesday, April 19, 2011, line 3, DEFENDANT DOE 1 ("WHOGOTDAT.AUDIT") Motion To Quash Subpoena. GRANTED, NO OPPOSITION FILED. =(302/LMG)

  • Hearing

    Apr 19, 2011

STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND VS. ONVOI BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, INC. ET AL

Reqeust For Permission To File Motion To Queash Trial Subpoen Set for hearing on Monday, April 18, 2011, line 4, PLAINTIFF STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND Request For Permission To File Motion To Queash Trial Subpoena. OFF CALENDAR, TO BE RE-NOTICED IN DEPARTMENT 602. =(302/LMG)

  • Hearing

    Apr 18, 2011

KATHERINE SANDEN VS. TIMOTHY O'NEIL

The Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, asserted by County Counsel in its response to Defendants' records subpoena, makes confidential the mental health records of an individual either involuntarily or voluntarily provided treatment. There are exceptions. (H&W § 5328.) Subdivision (f) of section 5328 provides for disclosure, to the courts, as necessary, for the administration of justice. Here, production of those records is required for fair adjudication of the plaintiff's claims.

  • Hearing

    Apr 14, 2011

LISA BEAUCHAMP VS. JAMES TOBIN

The March 19, 2010 subpoena included a specific reference to Dr. John Reville and Dr. Audrey Pan. The January 12, 2011 subpoena included a specific reference to Dr. Biju Varughese. Notices to consumers were served on plaintiff's attorney on March 22, 2010 and January 13, 2011, respectively. Counsel for defendants declares under penalty of perjury that on each occasion he received no objections to the subpoenas from plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Apr 14, 2011

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MICHAEL M KLEIN VS. NYAMATHI FAMILY TRUST

The Kleins as creditors also served a subpoena duces tecum for documents related to such a debt on third party Armen Akian, pursuant to CCP §708.130. 2. At the heart of this (enforcement of judgment) discovery dispute is the production of alleged checks and documents written by Armen Akian to subcontractors who worked on the Nyamathis' Buckskin construction project. Category no. 13 of the subpoena served on Mr.

  • Hearing

    Apr 13, 2011

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

ROBERT BEUSMAN VS. MARK ALLEN JOHNSTON

The subpoena at issue by way of this motion is not attached as an exhibit with the moving papers. As a result the language of the subpoena cannot be examined to determine whether or not it is in violation of the specificity requirement of CCP 1987(c).

  • Hearing

    Apr 08, 2011

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

INTERSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY VS. CLEVAND WRECKING COMPANY

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Quash Subpoena And Deposition Notice To Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith Llp'S Person Most Knowledgeable, Or In The Alternative, For Protective Roder Set for hearing on Friday, April 1, 2011, line 1. PLAINTIFF INTERSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY'S Motion To Quash Subpoena And Deposition Notice To Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP'S Person Most Knowledgeable, Or In The Alternative, For Protective Order. Motion to quash deposition subpoena granted.

  • Hearing

    Apr 01, 2011

  « first    1 ... 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.