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

201-225 of 9205 results

JOSEPH GARZA BY AND THROUGH HIS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST ANDREA LARA VS DANTHEA OBAL INDEPENDENT LIVING ASSOCIATES

The court rules as follows on Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to compel third-party San Diego Police Department to comply with deposition subpoena for business records. Based on the supplement brief filed by Plaintiffs [ROA 131] it appears that the San Diego Police Department has produced all records other than those relating to its investigation of the March 31, 2016, fire.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JANE DOE V. RICHARD ROES

. – Good cause exists to serve the subpoena for the documents requested. Leave to subpoena Apple, Inc. is granted. B. Endurance International Group, Inc. – Good cause exists to serve the subpoena for the documents requested. Leave to subpoena Endurance International Group, Inc. is granted. C. GoDaddy.com – The Court needs more information from Plaintiff at the hearing on how the documents requested relate to the Harmful Posts. D.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SAMUEL AVILES VS SHADOW DELIVERIES CORP., ET AL.

If section 1985.3 had been complied with, the record does not indicate why defendant did not simply move to compel compliance with the subpoena pursuant to section 1987.1, instead of pursuing an unwilling plaintiff for a signed authorization. These matters remain mysteries because of the scant record presented to the trial court.” There is ample California appellate authority holding that the trial court does not have the power to create additional methods of discovery.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

HIPOLITO PAUL CARRANZA VS SPEARS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.

Plaintiff filed a motion (the “Motion”) to quash Defendant’s subpoena for production of documents (the “Subpoena”) served on Pamela Kathleen Sprankling, LMFT. The Motion is made on the grounds that the Subpoena seeks information which is unduly burdensome, violates Plaintiff’s right to privacy, is irrelevant, and does not lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. DISCUSSION Under Code Civ.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JANE DOE V. RICHARD ROES

. – Good cause exists to serve the subpoena for the documents requested. Leave to subpoena Apple, Inc. is granted. B. Endurance International Group, Inc. – Good cause exists to serve the subpoena for the documents requested. Leave to subpoena Endurance International Group, Inc. is granted. C. GoDaddy.com – The Court needs more information from Plaintiff at the hearing on how the documents requested relate to the Harmful Posts. D.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

FREEM VS. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION

Plaintiff Mitchell Freem seeks an order quashing the Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records that Defendants Federal Express Corporation (“Subpoena”) et al. served on Plaintiff’s subsequent employer United Parcel Services, Inc. (“UPS”).

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

POWERSCOURT PARTNERS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS JOHN WARREN

(“Hermosa”) to comply with deposition subpoena for the production of business records and for monetary sanctions for $3,660.00 against Hermosa.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

JOSEPH GARZA BY AND THROUGH HIS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST ANDREA LARA VS DANTHEA OBAL INDEPENDENT LIVING ASSOCIATES

The court rules as follows on Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to compel third-party San Diego Police Department to comply with deposition subpoena for business records. Based on the supplement brief filed by Plaintiffs [ROA 131] it appears that the San Diego Police Department has produced all records other than those relating to its investigation of the March 31, 2016, fire.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

KEVIN WILLIS VS G&A INVESTMENTS CAR RENTAL, LLC, A MISSOURI LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Defendants submitted evidence that on March 13, 2020, it caused a business records subpoena for “any and all records and documents” regarding Plaintiff to be served on Harbor-UCLA along with a Notice to Consumer on Plaintiff’s counsel and that Defendants did not receive any objections to the subject subpoena. (Decl. of Morris ¶¶5-7, Exh. C.) The Court notes a review of Exhibit C indicates the Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records was served on LACDMH at Harbor-UCLA’s Torrance Address.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

TORRES VS ALBA

Again, though City apparently objects to many of the document requests included in the subpoena directed to it, City failed to file a separate statement. (Cal. R. Court, rule 3.1345(a)(5).) Further, the court observes the declaration of counsel in support of City's joinder in Plaintiff's motion is primarily composed of legal arguments rather than facts within counsel's personal knowledge. This is improper.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

MARTIN BALMACEDA VS ZHICHENG LIU ET AL

Moreover, it is not clear that Plaintiff’s counsel actually sought to serve Liu with a deposition subpoena, as the deposition subpoena is not listed among the documents to be served on Liu.

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

BEHROOZ MOHAZZABI VS LORENA BARBA

California Financial Information Privacy Act Financial Code § 4056, subsection (b)(7) provides that a financial institution may release nonpublic personal information “to comply with federal, state, or local laws, rules, and other applicable legal requirements; to comply with a properly authorized civil, criminal, administrative, or regulatory investigation or subpoena or summons by federal, state, or local authorities; or to respond to judicial process or government regulatory authorities having jurisdiction

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

EDUARDO BARBA VS BULK TRANSPORTATION

As J&R Fleet has clearly identified the relief it seeks, the court will exercise its discretion to consider the subject motion as a motion to compel compliance with a deposition subpoena under section 1987.1. J&R Fleet presents evidence it served a subpoena on Rodriguez ordering his appearance and production of documents. Phillips Decl. Ex. D.

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

DESCHENES VS BUREAU D ELECTRONIQUE APPLIQUEE BEA INC

Plaintiffs sought an order compelling a non-party, ESIS, to comply with a subpoena duces tecum served on it for records plaintiffs believed are "vital to the issues raised" in his complaint. ROA 18. ESIS is the worker's comp carrier for plaintiff's employer, Phillips. The motion was set for April 3, 2020. Also set for that day was a continued CMC. ROA 42-43. [At the initial CMC, problems with service of the pleadings upon Kilroy were brought to the court's attention. See ROA 20, 23, 25, 32.]

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CHRISTIAN SEYMOUR VS WINGSTOP RESTAURANTS,INC., ET AL.

.: 19STCV32185 Hearing Date: December 2, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: Motion TO ENFORCE SUBPOENA Defendant LMMJ Enterprise (“Defendant”) moves to enforce a subpoena served on Deponent Ivan Coe. Motions to compel third-parties require personal service or an agreement to accept service by mail. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1346.) Defendant served the subpoena by mail and proffers no evidence that Mr. Coe agreed to service in this manner. Therefore, the motion is denied without prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

FRANCO LARA VS JOSEPH TORKAN

Defendant Torkin's motion to quash Plaintiff Lara's deposition subpoena to Cedars-Sanai Medical Center is denied for the reasons set forth in plaintiff's opposition. Moving party to give notice. Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at [email protected] indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Dated this 2nd day of December 2020

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

ZENNI OPTICAL, INC., ET AL VS. JANE DOE

Plaintifis ’ Subpoena to Reddit On June 12, 2020, the court granted Plaintiffs’ ex parte application to serve third-party subpoenas prior to service of the Summons and for relief from California Rule of Court 3.] 10. Three days later, Plaintiffs served a business records subpoena on Reddit, Inc.

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

BRIAN SCOTT BARNETT V. VANCOUVER WAX LLC, ET AL.

Nature of Proceedings: Motion Compel Third Party Trackstreet, Inc. with Deposition Subpoena fo Production of Business Records Tentative

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

BRIAN SCOTT BARNETT V. VANCOUVER WAX LLC, ET AL.

A, Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records.) Neither plaintiff nor TrackStreet objected to the deposition subpoena for production of business records. (Singer Dec., ¶4.) Plaintiff also did not file a motion to quash or modify the subpoena. (Singer Dec., ¶5.) However, to date, TrackStreet has failed to comply with the subpoena. (Singer Dec., ¶6.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

RE: MOTION TO COMPEL LINDA COLVIS' COMPLIANCE W/DEPO SUBPOENA

FILED ON 02/13/20 BY LOUISA V BINSWANGER Need appearances to report status Note: Per 7-21-2020 minute order, court ordered Atty. Verriere to file a status report by 10-6- 2020, with replies to be filed by 10-13-2020, if any. None has been filed. Need appearances to report status, including mediation Notes: A. Opposition filed by...

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: MOTION TO COMPEL LINDA COLVIS' COMPLIANCE W/DEPO SUBPOENA

FILED ON 02/13/20 BY LOUISA V BINSWANGER PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances to report status Note: Per 7-21-2020 minute order, court ordered Atty. Verriere to file a status report by 10-6- 2020, with replies to be filed by 10-13-2020, if any. None has been filed. PROBATE EXAMINER NO...

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

BALBOA CAPITAL CORP VS. PREMIER MEDICAL CENTRE

Motion to Quash Subpoena Tentative Ruling: Specially Appearing Defendants Premier Medical Centre, LLC and Pearline Butcher seek an order quashing service of the summons pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 410.10, and to set aside the void default judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473(d). Motion is DENIED in its entirety. Plaintiff’s RJN is granted.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

STARS AND BARS, LLC VS. WESTPORT CA;ITAL PARTNERS, LLC

The motion to strike was filed by defendant Crown Valley Holdings, LLC, and sought to strike the reply filed by non-party Luxury Asset Lending, LLC, in connection with the motion to quash subpoena brought by that non-party (ROA 1610). The Court heard and ruled on the Luxury Asset Lending’s motion to quash on 11-23-20.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

SHAH VS. SHAH

Motion to Quash Discovery Subpoena Ruling: Off Calendar – no hearing will be held. Defendants Sandeep Shah and Anju Shah seek an order to quash or modify the deposition subpoena for business records issued by Plaintiff Nilesh Shah to National Franchise Sales, dated June 9, 2020 or, in the alternative, for protective order and/or for appointment of referee.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

SHAH VS. SHAH

Motion to Quash Discovery Subpoena Ruling: Off Calendar – no hearing will be held. Notice of Withdrawal filed 11/20/2020.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

  « 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.