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

126-150 of 9209 results

CHEN, ET AL. V. BEACON HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., ET AL.

Legal Standard If a deponent fails to answer a deposition question or produce documents or things designated in the deposition notice or subpoena, the examiner may either complete the examination on other matters or adjourn the deposition. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2025.460, subd. (e); 2025.480, subd. (a).) The motion to compel must be accompanied by a declaration stating facts showing “a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ.

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2020

MATTHEW ROBERT HORNER ET AL VS ARMANDO RODRIGUEZ BANDA ET AL

On the other hand, if Defendant denies that he was on his cellphone at the time of the accident, the Court denies the motion the motion to quash, but orders that Plaintiff issue a revised subpoena requesting only information for the period of 15 minutes before the accident to 15 minutes afterwards.

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2020

HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA VS. ENCLOS CORP.

Non-Party Custodian of Records CDC San Francisco LLC's Notice of Motion and Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena for Business Records Served by Plaintiff Hyundai Motor America Off calendar. A Notice of Withdrawal of Motion has been filed.

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2020

FRANCISCO ZENDEJAS VS. TAMARA CASSELLIUS

The Court intends to rule as follows; To deny Defendant Seth Taylor Cassellius' motion to compel compliance with deposition subpoena and for sanctions for failure to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2020.410(d). The subpoena was required to be personally served on "any officer, director, custodian of records, or to any agent or employee authorized by the organization to accept service of a subpoena." (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.220(b) (2)).

  • Hearing

    Dec 17, 2020

88/12 LLC VS GARAVENTA

HEARING ON MOTION TO/FOR QUASH BUSINESS RECORDS SUBPOENA FILED BY JOSEPH GARAVENTA * TENTATIVE RULING: * Granted. Before a court can allow the disclosure of confidential, private financial information, it must first “carefully balance the right of civil litigants to discover relevant facts, on the one hand, with the right of bank customers to maintain reasonable privacy regarding their financial affairs, on the other.” Fortunato v. Superior Court (2003) 114 CA4th 475, 481.

  • Hearing

    Dec 17, 2020

MALDONADO VS SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Deponent Michelle Lopez has willfully failed to comply with the deposition subpoena and this Court's June 15, 2020 Order. Accordingly, Michelle Lopez is hereby ordered to pay $1,909.00 [$1,409 for fees and costs incurred for non-appearance in July 2020 and $500 for fees and costs incurred for this motion], to be paid to counsel for San Diego Unified School District no later than 30 days after service of notice of this ruling.

  • Hearing

    Dec 17, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

BONNIE GARCIA VS DINI'S BY THE SEA, LTD

The Motion to Compel Western States Awnings to Produce Documents Pursuant to Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records brought by plaintiff Bonnie Garcia is GRANTED. The matter has been properly noticed, with proof of service on file. The motion is unopposed. Failure to file and/or serve an opposition constitutes an admission that a motion is meritorious. Rooney v. Vermont Inv. Corp. (1973) 10 Cal.3d 351, 367.

  • Hearing

    Dec 17, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MARIA GUADALUPE MARTINEZ VS PHARMAVITE LLC

BC671153 MARIA GUADALUPE MARTINEZ VS PHARMAVITE Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Subpoena Issued to Aerotek TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED. This subpoena overbroad in that it seeks private employment records not directly relevant to the litigation and which may be obtained through less intrusive means. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED as this motion was not opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification.

  • Hearing

    Dec 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

LOPEZ VS AMERICAN HEARING HEARING AND CENTER OF THE SOUTH BAY INC

Accordingly, the subpoena shall be limited to payroll records, benefits, description of position and work requirements, and any request and/or need for accommodation by plaintiff. The request for monetary sanctions is denied. TJ Maxx acted with substantial justification.

  • Hearing

    Dec 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

SULLIVAN V MORENO

Cal Code Civ Proc § 1987 Service of subpoena (b) requires a showing of good cause fo the production of the materials sought. CCP § 2020 et seq., nonparty discovery, also requires a showing of good cause fo production. (Calcor Space Facility v.

  • Hearing

    Dec 16, 2020

  • Judge

    : Timothy Volkmann</p>

  • County

    Santa Cruz County, CA

DOUGLAS E BRYANT VS NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION

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

    Dec 16, 2020

SULLIVAN V MORENO

Cal Code Civ Proc § 1987 Service of subpoena (b) requires a showing of good cause fo the production of the materials sought. CCP § 2020 et seq., nonparty discovery, also requires a showing of good cause fo production. (Calcor Space Facility v.

  • Hearing

    Dec 16, 2020

RAY FU VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

In his argument regarding about a subpoena (and perhaps elsewhere in his briefs), Petitioner also misperceives the evidentiary standard under CCP section 1094.5. “As a general rule, a hearing on a writ of administrative mandamus is conducted solely on the record of the proceeding before the administrative agency.” (Richardson v. City and County of San Francisco (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 671, 702.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 15, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

JANICE KROK VS CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD

The City was forced to subpoena these short-term vacation rental companies to see if there was evidence that refuted her claims. Opp. at 5. The City notes that the subpoena costs are recoverable under CCP section 1033(a)(3) because, pursuant to the Civil Discovery Act, discovery conducted by way of a business records subpoena is a “deposition” for purposes of cost recovery. Naser v. Lakeridge Athletic Club, (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 571, 576-78.

  • Hearing

    Dec 15, 2020

ARANKI VS. JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC

Motion to Quash (Depo Subpoena) Ruling: Off Calendar per MP – no hearing will be held. Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Dec 15, 2020

KELLER, FISHBACK & JACKSON, LLP VS ALY ABDELRAHIM

(Yelp) with a deposition subpoena for the production of documents. Plaintiff now moves to compel Indeed, Glassdoor, and Yelp to produce documents pursuant to these deposition subpoenas.

  • Hearing

    Dec 15, 2020

KELLER, FISHBACK & JACKSON, LLP VS ALY ABDELRAHIM

(Yelp) with a deposition subpoena for the production of documents. Plaintiff now moves to compel Indeed, Glassdoor, and Yelp to produce documents pursuant to these deposition subpoenas.

  • Hearing

    Dec 15, 2020

AIMMY WILSON ET AL VS WELCH ALLYN INC ET AL

“(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.” (CCP § 2025.480.) Identity of the Doctor: Plaintiff testified that she suffers from PTSD when she was assaulted by a doctor when she was a minor.

  • Hearing

    Dec 15, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

STRATEGIC HEALTH SERVICES LLC V. NICHOLAS MATTHEWS, ET AL.

. §2.61 (“A person holding records subject to the regulations may not disclose records in response to a subpoena unless a court of competent jurisdiction enters an authorizing order under the regulations in this part.”) Moreover, in May 2020, Baer allegedly made an unauthorized withdrawal of $70,000 from SHS’s operating account and another $150,000 withdrawal in August 2020, leaving SHS without any operating funds. (Mathews Dec., ¶ 8.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2020

SEYEDMAZIYAR MOHSENPOORGHAZIMAHALE VS JANE JETABUT, ET AL.

LEGAL STANDARD If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or production of documents, the court may quash the subpoena entirely or modify it. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).)

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2020

IRENE MELENDEZ VS EMANUEL ARELLANO, ET AL.

Plaintiff Irene Melendez (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel Non-Party Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department (“Non-Party”), particularly the non-party Homicide Bureau, to provide verified responses to her request for production of business records pursuant to a deposition subpoena served on November 1, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JOHNNY J. DURON, ET AL. VS ISIDRO PALENCIA, JR.

.: 19STCV03503 Hearing Date: December 11, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motion to compel COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA Background Defendant Isidro Palencia, Jr. (“Defendant”) moves for an order: (1) Compelling the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (the “VA”), a federal agency, to comply with a state court subpoena; or (2) Compelling Plaintiff to execute an authorization for release of the records. The motion is denied.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2020

AMNON HOROWITZ VS SHENANDOAH VILLAS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS LLC, ET AL.

., Case No. 20STCV02397 Tentative Ruling re: Defendant’s Motion to Quash Subpoena Defendant Shenandoah Villas Homeowner Associations, LLC (Defendant) moves to quash the deposition subpoena served by Plaintiff on One West Bank. The motion is denied. The Court awards $2,606.17 in sanctions to Plaintiff. Where the witness whose deposition is sought is not a party, a subpoena must be served to compel his or her attendance, testimony, or production of documents. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.010, subd. (b).)

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

FCMT, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS DOT DOT SMILE, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Dot Dot Smile, LLC MOTION FOR ORDERS RELATING TO RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA Moving Party: Defendant Dot Dot Smile, LLC Responding Party: Plaintiff FCMT, Inc. SUMMARY OF FACTS: Plaintiff FCMT, Inc. alleges that defendant Dot Dot Smile, LLC placed garment orders with plaintiff for the delivery of various children’s clothing, that the garments were shipped to defendant, and that defendant has failed to fully pay for the shipments as agreed.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JANE DOE VS UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION On June 28, 2019, Plaintiff Jane Doe filed a motion to compel the deposition of the person most knowledgeable at third party Instagram and the production of documents pursuant to a deposition subpoena served on April 8, 2019. At some point in the last year and a half, Instagram produced the documents.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 369     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.