Therefore, Respondent is not precluded from deposing Complainant about the audio tapes and the subject matter within them. Moreover, counsel for both parties admit that the process of copying, and at times recopying, the 24 audio tapes has taken a long time. Indeed, Complainant's counsel admits that due to recording problems, some copies of said tapes will not be delivered to Respondent until later this week. As such, it is unlikely that Respondent's counsel would have been prepared to question Complainant about the contents of said tapes even if he had requested them on December 24, 1998. Complainant argues that a subpoena duces tecum is an inappropriate method for obtaining documents from a party.
Complainant also objects to the scope of Respondent's request.
Section 18.24 permits party and nonparty witnesses to be served with subpoenas duces tecum. In contrast, Section 18.19 applies only to parties. Because a party has the option of proceeding under either Section 18. 24 or Section 18.19 in compelling the production of documents by opposing party at the taking of a pre-hearing deposition, Section 18.24 must be construed in pari materia 2 with Section 18.19. P. 34 is in pari material with Fed.