What is a Subpoena Duces Tecum?

Useful Rulings on Subpoena Duces Tecum

Recent Rulings on Subpoena Duces Tecum

ALFRED SOLORIA VS RICHARD J ROSIAK ET AL

Plaintiff filed a motion to quash or modify the subpoena duces tecum (the “SDT”) seeking the production of documents served by Defendants on witness Greenberg Whitcomb Takeuchi Gibson Grayer, LLP (“Greenberg”)[2], which is a law firm that represented Plaintiff in the Underlying Action. Plaintiff also filed a motion to quash or modify the SDT seeking the production of documents served by Defendants on witness David H. Pierce of David H.

  • Hearing

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY VS MARK ALAN SOBAY

A judge may make an order quashing, modifying, or directing compliance with a subpoena or subpoena duces tecum, on a motion reasonably made by a party, the witness, or the judge, on the terms and conditions the judge declares, including protective orders. (Code Civ.

  • Hearing

THE EPHRAIM & HILDA FEY FAMILY L.P. VS GREG GALLETLY ET AL

De Castro, West, Chodorow, Mendler & Glickfeld, Inc.; Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum directed to Custodian of Records for Santa Barbara County Tax Collector; Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum directed to Bradley Barnes; Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum directed to Brittany Barnes; and Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum directed to Brooke Barnes.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

MERRILENE MOORE VS PFLUG PACKAGING & FULFILLMENT, INC.

18-6180 Moore Quash 11/20/2020 Defendant Pflug Packaging & Fulfilment Inc. moves to quash a subpoena duces tecum issued by counsel for Plaintiff Marrilene Moore to Pacific Coast Producers, a customer of Defendant Pflug.

  • Hearing

SHAH VS. SHAH

., § 1985.3(i) – Nothing in section 1985.3 may be construed to apply to any subpoena duces tecum that does not request the records of any particular consumer and that requires a custodian of records to delete all information that would in any way identify any consumer whose records are to be produced.) Defendants also contend the subpoena seeks documents invasive of their privacy rights.

  • Hearing

AJA STEEN, AN INDIVIDUAL VS IHS GLOBAL INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION

Plaintiff claims that IHS had to file this motion within 60 days of his objections to the subpoena duces tecum. Plaintiff is incorrect. CCP section 2025.480’s 60-day motion deadline applies “[i]f a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document … under the deponent’s control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena.” Kaiser Permanente, the deponent, did not fail to produce any documents.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

STAMATIS STAMATOPOULOS VS ALEX YAMINI, ET AL.

Compliance with a subpoena duces tecum and the requirements of section 1561 normally dispenses with the need for a live witness. (See People v. McVey (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 405, 414-15 (“Compliance with a subpoena duces tecum may dispense with the need for a live witness to establish the business records exception if the records are produced by the custodian or other qualified witness, together with the affidavit described in section 1561.”).)

  • Hearing

CORZINE V. RIEMANN

(g) Any consumer whose personal records are sought by a subpoena duces tecum and who is a party to the civil action in which this subpoena duces tecum is served may, prior to the date for production, bring a motion under Section 1987.1 to quash or modify the subpoena duces tecum. . .” Id.

  • Hearing

PLAN B MGMT. VS DIVERSIFIED PANELS ET. AL.

Similarly, the reason that there is no requirement in section 1985 that the summons be served prior to the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum is that section 1985 presupposes that an adversarial proceeding has already commenced, such as a trial, 'or upon the taking of a deposition,' (§ 1985, subd. (c)), and that, in either case, other rules of procedure, such as section 2025, subdivisions (b)(2) and (c), require that a defendant be served, and notice of the subpoena be given to the parties.

  • Hearing

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Motion by Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority to Order USC Verdugo Hills’ Compliance with the Subpoena Duces Tecum for Production of Plaintiff’s Medical Records is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.1). The court modifies the subpoena is the following manner: (1) the date range is limited to January 1, 2007 to the present; (2) the scope of the subpoena is limited to documents related to the spine, brain and/or eyes.

  • Hearing

STARS AND BARS, LLC V WESTPORT CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC

Based on this assertion the court determines that there is a legitimate basis for examination of the third party in this instance and for the production of the documents described in the Notice of Taking Deposition and Subpoena Duces Tecum. Accordingly, the motion to quash is DENIED. The motion to strike the reply to the opposition (ROA 1624) is off calendar as MOOT. The objections to the declaration of attorney Alex L.

  • Hearing

JUSTIN LIU VS JEAN LIU, ET AL.

Subdivision (k) provides, “Failure to comply with this section shall be sufficient basis for the witness to refuse to produce the personal records sought by a subpoena duces tecum.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1985.3(k) [emphasis added].). As recognized by Saltzman, “Personal records” means “the original, any copy of books, documents, other writings, or electronically stored information pertaining to a consumer and which are maintained by any ‘witness’ which is a . . . attorney.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1985.3(a)(1).)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

DESCHENES VS BUREAU D ELECTRONIQUE APPLIQUEE BEA INC

Plaintiff 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 the complaint. ROA 18. [ESIS is the worker's comp carrier for plaintiff Richard'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

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ROYAL PORTER MCHENRY VS MAMA SHELTER INC., ET AL.

On December 5, 2019, Plaintiff obtained issuance of a “Civil Subpoena (Duces Tecum) for Personal Appearance and Production of Documents, Electronically Stored Information, and Things at Trial or Hearing” directed to defendants Mama Shelter Inc., Yannick Herry, Benjamin Trigano, Vincent Lopez, “and/or” the attorney for Defendants (the “Civil Subpoena”) (attached to Plaintiff’s Motion, filed December 13, 2019).

  • Hearing

JANE HC DOE, A MINOR BY AND THROUGH HER GAURDIAN AD LITEM KIM S. VS TORRANCE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A CALIFORNIA LOCAL PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

CCP § 1985.3(b) states that, prior to the date called for in the subpoena duces tecum for the production of personal records, the subpoenaing party shall serve or cause to be served on the consumer whose records are being sought a copy of the subpoena duces tecum, of the affidavit supporting the issuance of the subpoena, if any, and of the notice described in subdivision (e) (notice to consumer), and proof of service as indicated in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CHRISTIAN FUHRER, ET AL. VS BEVERLY HILLS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

“Any consumer whose personal records are sought by a subpoena duces tecum and who is a party to the civil action in which this subpoena duces tecum is served may, prior to the date for production, bring a motion under Section 1987.1 to quash or modify the subpoena duces tecum. Notice of the bringing of that motion shall be given to the witness and deposition officer at least five days prior to production.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

DESCHENES VS BUREAU D ELECTRONIQUE APPLIQUEE BEA INC

Plaintiff 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 the complaint. ROA 18. [ESIS is the worker's comp carrier for plaintiff Richard'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

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CBIZ BENEFITS & INSURANCE SERVICES, INC. VS. GARRETT

The failure to comply with this requirement “shall be sufficient basis for the witness to refuse to produce the employment records sought by subpoena duces tecum.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1985.6, subd. (j).) The motion is otherwise DENIED. Hub has failed to substantiate any of the grounds raised for a protective order completely precluding plaintiff from seeking the subject discovery.

  • Hearing

RASOOL ESKANDARI VS PROPERTY SPECIALISTS GROUP, INC. A NEVADA CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

A party to a civil action to which a subpoena duces tecum is served may, prior to the date for production, bring a motion under 1987.1 to quash or modify the subpoena duces tecum. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1985.3, subd. (g).) “Notice of the bringing of that motion shall be given to the witness and deposition officer at least five days prior to production.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LAURA ESQUIVEL ET AL VS MENZIES AVIATION USA INC ET AL

CCP § 1985.3(b) states that, prior to the date called for in the subpoena duces tecum for the production of personal records, the subpoenaing party shall serve or cause to be served on the consumer whose records are being sought a copy of the subpoena duces tecum, of the affidavit supporting the issuance of the subpoena, if any, and of the notice described in subdivision (e) (notice to consumer), and proof of service as indicated in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c).

  • Hearing

DEIDRE KENNEDY, ET AL. VS PAMA V PROPERTIES LP, ET AL.

Discussion Defendants Pama and Pama Management move to quash a subpoena duces tecum served by Plaintiff on the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (DPH). Plaintiffs have not opposed.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

DF & RW, INC., DBA F& W FOODSERVICES VS PHILIP WEINBERGER, ET AL.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1985.3 states in part: (b) Prior to the date called for in the subpoena duces tecum for the production of personal records, the subpoenaing party shall serve or cause to be served on the consumer whose records are being sought a copy of the subpoena duces tecum, of the affidavit supporting the issuance of the subpoena, if any, and of the notice described in subdivision (e), and proof of service as indicated in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

JANE HC DOE, A MINOR BY AND THROUGH HER GAURDIAN AD LITEM KIM S. VS TORRANCE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A CALIFORNIA LOCAL PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

CCP § 1985.3(b) states that, prior to the date called for in the subpoena duces tecum for the production of personal records, the subpoenaing party shall serve or cause to be served on the consumer whose records are being sought a copy of the subpoena duces tecum, of the affidavit supporting the issuance of the subpoena, if any, and of the notice described in subdivision (e) (notice to consumer), and proof of service as indicated in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

KALJIAN SANTA BARBARA LLC V. DR. R. GREG LOWRY, DDS, INC.

It is therefore unclear whether the subpoena served is proper or whether the requirements for a subpoena duces tecum under section 1985 et al. have been met. Notwithstanding, there have been no procedural objections regarding the form of the subpoena. Notwithstanding this procedural confusion, it is clear that the parties have a specific dispute as to whether the individual tax returns are to be produced pursuant to the subpoena.

  • Hearing

PHAN ULLMAN V. LE

Based on Plaintiff’s (Hanh Thuc Phan Ullman) Notice of Taking Off Calendar Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash or Modify Defendants’ Subpoena Duces Tecum (filed on 8-27-20 under ROA No. 28), Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash or Modify Deposition Subpoena (filed on 7-23-20 under ROA No. 19, and scheduled for hearing on 9-29-20) is off calendar.

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 37     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.