What is a Subpoena Duces Tecum?

Useful Rulings on Subpoena Duces Tecum

Recent Rulings on Subpoena Duces Tecum

SCOTT ERIC ROSENSTIEL VS CANDACE HOWELL, ET AL.

CCP §1985.3(b) states that prior to the date called for in a 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 sought a copy of: (a) the subpoena duces tecum; (b) the affidavit supporting the issuance of the subpoena, if any; (c) notice to the consumer; and (d) proof of service. (See CCP §1985.3(b), (c), (e).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DANNIEL MADRID VS CANDACE HOWELL

CCP §1985.3(b) states that prior to the date called for in a 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 sought a copy of: (a) the subpoena duces tecum; (b) the affidavit supporting the issuance of the subpoena, if any; (c) notice to the consumer; and (d) proof of service. (See CCP §1985.3(b), (c), (e).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DANIEL GARCIA VS BRUNTON ENTERPRISES INC

Pursuant to CCP §1985.3, prior to the date called for in the subpoena duces tecum for the production of documents, 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 personally or if he is a party to his attorney of record. (CCP §1985.3(b).) Personal records include documents pertaining to a consumer (individual) and which are maintained by any “witness”, including a telephone corporation which is a public utility.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SIANO VS. PUFFY DELIVERY, INC.

May 21, 2019, No. 2:18-cv-04258-SVW-GJS) 2019 WL 3315282 [statute inapplicable to motion to unseal court records containing employee’s personnel file “because Section 1985.6 applies by its terms only to the use of a subpoena duces tecum”] [quotation omitted]; McEwan v. OSP Group, L.P. (S.D.Cal. Mar. 30, 2016, No. 14-cv-2823-BEN (WVG)) 2016 WL 1241530, at *5 [“Thus, by its plain terms, Section 1985.6 only applies to the use of a subpoena duces tecum for the production of employment records.”].)

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

SCOTT ERIC ROSENSTIEL VS CANDACE HOWELL, ET AL.

CCP §1985.3(b) states that prior to the date called for in a 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 sought a copy of: (a) the subpoena duces tecum; (b) the affidavit supporting the issuance of the subpoena, if any; (c) notice to the consumer; and (d) proof of service. (See CCP §1985.3(b), (c), (e).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

PAUL ROBINSON VS SURFACE MODIFICATION SYSTEMS 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 the 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. (CCP §1985.3(g).) Here, the date of production on the subpoena at issue was May 15, 2019. It is undisputed that Counsel for Plaintiff did not file a Motion to Quash prior to the date of production.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JAMES R MELVILLE ET AL VS OLYMPUS AMERICA INC ET AL

(3) By a party to a proceeding before a court or administrative agency pursuant to a subpoena, subpoena duces tecum, notice to appear served pursuant to Section 1987 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or any provision authorizing discovery in a proceeding before a court or administrative agency. . . . (Civ. Code, § 56.10(a) & (b)[bold emphasis added].) As such, Civil Code § 56.10 does not provide a basis for quashing the subpoenas.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

(3) By a party to a proceeding before a court or administrative agency pursuant to a subpoena, subpoena duces tecum, notice to appear served pursuant to Section 1987 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or any provision authorizing discovery in a proceeding before a court or administrative agency. . . . (Civ Code § 56.10(a) & (b)[bold emphasis added].)

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

ADAN FLORES VS TELFER PAVEMENT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

The shoe is now on the other foot as Plaintiff seeks to quash Defendants’ subpoena duces tecum to Maravillas Transportation, LLC seeking all of Plaintiff’s employment records. Plaintiff gives notice that he seeks $1,315.65 in monetary sanctions against all Defendants and their attorneys, jointly and severally. THE SUBPOENA There are 46 categories for production of documents.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

ROUGHAN & ASSOCIATES AT LINC, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS DEBORAH PERLMAN

.”), ¶ 3] o Exhibit 9 to the Opposition, which is a true and correct copy of a Subpoena Duces Tecum of Business Records that Roughan caused to be served on Michael C. Van, Esq. [Koczara Dec., ¶ 11] o Exhibit 10 to the Opposition, which are true and correct copies of the business records produced by Michael C. Van in response to subpoena.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

ROUGHAN & ASSOCIATES AT LINC, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS DEBORAH PERLMAN

.”), ¶ 3] o Exhibit 9 to the Opposition, which is a true and correct copy of a Subpoena Duces Tecum of Business Records that Roughan caused to be served on Michael C. Van, Esq. [Koczara Dec., ¶ 11] o Exhibit 10 to the Opposition, which are true and correct copies of the business records produced by Michael C. Van in response to subpoena.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

WILLIAM M. DORFMAN DDS VS PATTI CANTOR ET AL

Instead, other statutes provide methods for a party to obtain records from nonparty witnesses, such as a deposition subpoena for production of business records or a civil subpoena duces tecum (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1985, subd. (a), 2020.020, subd. (b)), and authorize the court to issue orders directing compliance with those subpoenas (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1987.1, subd. (a), 2025.450, subd. (a)). In fact, in his motion, Dr.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

CESAR ROMERO ET AL VS FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY ET AL

(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

    Jul 01, 2020

FAYE PIERSON, ET AL. VS. JESUS DURAZO, ET AL.

Merits "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. . . .

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SHANNON NADJ VS AYESHA KHAMIS MOHAMMAD

.: 19STCV25886 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S ANSWER; MOTION TO STRIKE SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM TO AYESHA KHAMIS MOHAMMAD Dept. 27 1:30 p.m. June 25, 2020 On July 23, 2019, plaintiff Shannon Nadj filed this action against Ayesha KhamisMohammad for negligence arising from a January 12, 2018 motor vehicle collision. Plaintiff alleges Mohammad was a resident of the United Arab Emirates and driving a rental car.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

ANJA BAYET, ET AL. V. PETER LEVY, DC

Frawley has ever been provided with notice of the June 23, 2020, hearing date on the motion to compel his compliance with the subpoena duces tecum served upon him by defendant Levy, the Court will continue the hearing on the motion to July 21, 2020. Defendant is directed to provide timely and proper notice to Dr. Levy of the continued hearing date on the motion, and to file proof of service of such notice with the court no later than June 30, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

ARAM MARTINYAN VS AMERICAN RELIABLE WINDOWS & DOORS INC.

Based on the foregoing, ARWD’s Motions to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum from Defendant’s Bank Accounts ending in 2458 and 7013 are DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MATTHEW G LOPEZ BAUTISTA VS FOOTHILL PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL

Board of Medical Examiners (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 551, 564 [involving affidavit for subpoena duces tecum with analogous good cause requirement; see also, Weil & Brown, et al. CAL. PRAC. GUIDE: CIV. PRO. BEFORE TRIAL (The Rutter Group 2019) ¶ 8:1495.8) Here, the motion is accompanied by the declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel, Maro Burunsuzyan (“Burunsuzyan”). Burunsuzyan, however, makes no showing of good cause.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

DUAL DIAGNOSIS TREATMENT CENTER VS. HEALTH NET, INC., ET AL

Sovereign next claims Health Net did not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 1985.3, which requires that 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. (CCP §1985.3(b).)

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BANK OF STOCKTON V. GARCIA

Under section 1985.3, “[a]ny 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1985.3, subd. (g).)

  • Hearing

    Jun 19, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Enforcement

DOUGLAS WEINSTEIN AND ROSSELL WEINSTEIN

Douglas’ CIVIL SUBPOENA (DUCES TECUM) for Personal Appearance to produce Rossell’s tax returns was filed on 2/24/20. 9. Rossell’s Motion to Quash Douglas’ Civil Subpoena [item #8 above] was filed on 2/26/20 and contends that Douglas’ subpoena should be quashed because: (#1) no Notice to Consumer was served; (#2) it seeks materials that are protected by the financial right to privacy; and (#3) it seeks materials that are in no way relevant or admissible at the DCSS hearing.

  • Hearing

    Jun 16, 2020

SARA MAGANA ANGUIANO ET AL. VS ADREINA ROMERO ET AL.

18-1249 Anguiano Reconsider- Quash SDT 2 6/17/2020 Defendants Andreina Romero and Carmen Romero move for reconsideration of the court’s award of sanctions related to the granting of Plaintiff’s motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum. Defendants then filed an amended motion requesting that the court-appointed Discovery Referee hear this motion.

  • Hearing

    Jun 11, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

(3) By a party to a proceeding before a court or administrative agency pursuant to a subpoena, subpoena duces tecum, notice to appear served pursuant to Section 1987 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or any provision authorizing discovery in a proceeding before a court or administrative agency. . . . Civ Code § 56.10(a) & (b)(bold emphasis added).

  • Hearing

    Mar 17, 2020

FENNESSY V. ALTOONIAN

The procedure of this subdivision is alternative to the procedure provided by Sections 1985 and 1987.5 in the cases herein provided for, and no subpoena duces tecum shall be required. ¶ Subject to this subdivision, the notice provided in this subdivision shall have the same effect as is provided in subdivision (b) as to a notice for attendance of that party or person.” (Code of Civil Procedure, § 1987(c).)

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2020

KATHRYN RETZER VS PATRICK HERNING,, ET AL.

(CCP § 1985.6(a)(2) (defining “employee” as “any individual who is or has been employed by a witness subject to a subpoena duces tecum”).) Consistent with her theory of relevancy, Plaintiff has propounded the Subpoena based on the theory that the individuals are “currently or formerly affiliated with 11 Honore,” and 11 Honore and Herning have submitted no contrary evidence. B.

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 33     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.