Source: https://trellis.law/ca/motion-type/out-of-state-discovery-395
Timestamp: 2020-07-15 02:55:38
Document Index: 193565924

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2026', '§ 2026', '§ 2026', '§ 2026', '§ 2026', '§ 2026', '§6', '§ 2029', '§ 2026', '§ 2026', '§ 2026', '§ 2020', '§ 1985', '§ 1987', '§ 2029', '§ 11187', '§ 2025', '§ 2020', '§ 2020', '§ 1985', '§ 1985', '§ 2026', '§2026', '§ 2026', '§ 2026', '§ 2034', '§ 2026', '§ 2025', '§ 2026', '§ 2026', '§ 2026', '§ 1560', '§ 2026', '§ 2026', '§2026', '§2026', '§ 2026', '§ 3119', '§ 3119', '§2026', '§2026', '§2026', '§ 2026', '§ 2026', '§ 2026', '§ 2034', '§ 2034', '§ 2026', '§ 2026', '§ 2026']

What is an Out of State Discovery?
Out of State Discovery and Commissions
Code of Civil Procedure § 2026.010
Code of Civil Procedure § 2026.010 governs the taking of discovery in another state in an action filed in California. That statute provides a procedure for a party in a California action to obtain discovery in another state by taking an oral deposition, which may include a request to bring and produce documents or other things.
Out of State Commissions under Code of Civil Procedure § 2026.010(f) Are Not Always Required
A commission is not required in all cases because states differ as to whether a commission is required and what procedures must be followed. (See generally Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2010) ¶ 8:636 et seq., p. 84 et seq.) Moreover, the parties and deponent may stipulate to avoid some or all of these formalities. The party noticing a third-party out-of-state deposition must follow local law to ensure that the deponent can be compelled to attend and testify. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2026.010(c).)
Relief in Out of State Courts
“A nonparty that is not named in the pleadings makes a general appearance and submits to the court’s personal jurisdiction by seeking affirmative relief or opposing a motion on the merits.” (Canaan Taiwanese Christian Church v. All World Mission Ministries (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1115, 1126; see also Serrano v. Stefan Merli Plastering Co., Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1014, 1029.) However, Code of Civil Procedure § 2026.010(c) states that “[i]f the deponent is not a party to the action …, a party serving a deposition notice under this section shall use any process and procedures required and available under the laws of the state … where the deposition is to be taken to compel the deponent to attend and to testify, as well as to produce any document, [or] electronically stored information[.]” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2026.010(c).) The foreign states should determine compliance with those states’ procedures for obtaining the subpoenas. (Uniform Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act §6; Code Civ. Proc. § 2029.600(a).)
Mandatory Compliance under § 2026.010(c)
The mandatory “shall” requires that the third-party deposition comply with local law. It is not sufficient that the deponent appears voluntarily; the deponent’s attendance and testimony must be subject to legal process. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2026.010(c).) The reason for this requirement is illustrated by the problem of what to do if the deponent refuses to answer a question. If the deponent appeared voluntarily and thus is not subject to legal process, the deponent cannot be forced to answer the question. The purpose of the deposition would then be frustrated.
Any issue as to privileges claimed by the nonresident witness is determined by the law of the place where the deposition is taken. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2026.010(c).) Witnesses to events, even those which have occurred some years ago, do not have the unilateral option of dictating whether and to what extent they will be subject to the lawful process of a court for purposes of deposition or trial.
Relief Through Misapplication of Law
Nonparty Discovery Statutes that Do Not Apply Out of State
Nonparty discovery is governed in the Code of Civil Procedure in Chapter 6 of the Discovery Act. This chapter, however, explicitly states that it only covers “discovery within the state.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2020.010.) Similarly, special provisions govern the production of “consumer” records. (See, e.g., Code Civ. Proc. § 1985.)
Courts interpreting these statutes have consistently concluded that nonresidents cannot be deposed pursuant to these statutes. In I-CA Enterprises, Inc. v. Palram Americas, Inc., for example, the Court of Appeal affirmed “the trial court's determination that it had no power to compel production of [defendant’s] financial records or to compel a deposition of [defendant’s] nonresident PMK.” (I-CA Enterprises, Inc. v. Palram Americas, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 257, 282.) In Amoco Chemical Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, the Court of Appeal held that plaintiff’s notice to attend under CCP § 1987 (which “serves as a substitute for a subpoena”) was “void on its face” and “no objection was required” because it exceeded the jurisdiction of the court. (Amoco Chemical Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 554, 559.) While these cases generally refer to the inability of the court to compel nonresident parties to submit to deposition subpoenas, the plain text of the statute—referring only to “witnesses”—clearly encompasses nonresident nonparties. Moreover, as the Court of Appeal has said in a somewhat different context, “nonparties should not face a more harsh discovery rule than parties.” (Unzipped Apparel, LLC v. Bader (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 123, 136.)
Discovery Subpoena Based on a Foreign Subpoena
The Interstate and International Depositions and Discovery Act (Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2029.200-2029.900) provides a procedure for having a deposition subpoena issued in California based on a “foreign subpoena” issued by another state or foreign nation. (See Foreign Subpoena For Discovery In California.)
California courts are sensitive to the burden and cost placed on non-party participants, individual vendors, who would require non-party subjects to scour years and years of records with little or no prospect of uncovering anything relevant to the case. (Calco Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal. App. 4th 216, 222.)
Government Action: California District Attorneys
“If the witness named in the subpoena does not reside or conduct business in this state, the department head may seek to compel the witness’ testimony and production, inspection, and copying of documents or other items described in subdivision (e) of Section 11181 in the manner provided for the enforcement of a deposition notice to a nonparty as described in Section 2026.010 or 2027.010 of the Code of Civil Procedure or in any other manner authorized by any law.” (Gov. Code § 11187(c).)
California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1010(d) provides that a nonparty deponent may appear at his or her deposition by telephone with court approval upon a finding of good cause and no prejudice to any party. The deponent must be sworn in the presence of the deposition officer or by any means stipulated to by the parties or ordered by the court. Any party may be personally present at the deposition.
California Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.310(b) provides that the court may expressly provide that a nonparty deponent may appear at the deposition by telephone if it finds there is good cause and no prejudice to any party.
Useful Rulings on Out of State Discovery
STEVEN ROTH VS NEIL RAPHAEL FINESTONE
5/16/17 Dept. 73 Rafael Ongkeko, Judge presiding ROTH vs. FINESTONE, et al. (BC539135) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL THIRD PARTY AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, ETC. (filed 3/21/17) TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED. DISCUSSION (Please note: Unfortunately, the court’s tentative ruling website, which is the source of this version, is not able...
...” CCP § 2020.010. This includes deposition subpoenas to produce business records. CCP § 2020.010(a)(3). Similarly, special provisions govern the production of “consumer” records, which includes the records sought here. See generally CCP §§ 1985 et seq. Subpoenas brought pursuant to these provisions, as plaintiff’s subpoenas were (see the citation to CCP §§ 1985.3, 1985.6, in the notice of de...
Sepeda v. Christopher L. Bispham et al.
Motion: By Plaintiff to strike Defendant Central California Conference of Seventh-day Adventists’ objections to the Plaintiff taking the deposition of non-party Witness Blake Johnson and to compel non-party Witness Blake Johnson’s attendance at deposition; Sanctions Tentative Ruling: To deny the motion on the grounds that the court does not have jurisdiction to compel a resident of another state t...
..ept as modified in this section, the procedures for taking oral depositions in California set forth in Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 2025.010) apply to an oral deposition taken in another state of the United States, or in a territory or an insular possession subject to its jurisdiction. (c) If the deponent is not a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a...
ROD MESSECA, Plaintiff, vs. KRISTEN HUNSBERGER, Defendant. Case No.: BC615604 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS FOR PLAINTIFF’S OUT OF STATE MEDICAL, BILLING, AND RADIOGRAPHIC RECORDS Plaintiff Rod Messeca’s Motion to Quash Subpoenas for Plaintiff’s Out-of-State Medical, Billing, and Radiographic Records is GRANTED. The Court declines to award sanctions against either part...
..st production of plaintiff’s medical, billing, and radiographic records from Providence Business Office/Legal Team located in Portland, Oregon; Burbank Emergency Medical Group located in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Innovative Procedural & Surgical Center located in Las Vegas, Nevada; Innovative Pain Care Center located in Las Vegas, Nevada; and Anesthesia & Intensive Care Specialists located in Las...
S. Sidney Mandel and Paul D. Bernstein, as Co-Trustees for the benefit of Elaine S. Bernstein vs. Grubb & Ellis Realty Investors LLC
The Court has reviewed the objection, response, and supplemental briefs filed by the parties and non-party S. Sidney Mandel (“Mandel”). The Court SUSTAINS Mandel and Plaintiffs’ objections to Discovery Referee’s Report and Recommendation re: Defendants’ Motion to Compel the Production of Electronically Stored Information (ESI) from former Plaintiff S. Sidney Mandel (“Report”). The Court has person...
..Stefan Merli Plastering Co., Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1014, 1029.) However, CCP § 2026.010(c) states that “[i]f the deponent is not a party to the action …, a party serving a deposition notice under this section shall use any process and procedures required and available under the laws of the state … where the deposition is to be taken to compel the deponent to attend and to testify, as well a...
Elena Sainz vs. 1 Mover Depot Inc
..ld Defendant obtain counsel, Defendant's counsel may attend deposition at Plaintiff's counsel's office. Discussion CCP 2025.310 (b) provides that the court may expressly provide that a nonparty deponent may appear at the deposition by telephone if it finds there is good cause and no prejudice to any party. CRC 3.1010 (a) allows a party to take an oral deposition by phone provided that notice se...
Recent Rulings on Out of State Discovery
Santa Barbara County, CA (14)
BARBARA CARRION, ET AL. V. LAUREN COOPER, ET AL.
. §2026.010, subd. (c). Here, the proofs of service of deposition subpoena for production of business records fail to identify the person served, whether the person served was an officer, director, or custodian of records of the company, or the date of service. (Souza Dec., ¶4, Exs. 3, 4.) The proofs of service are also not signed by the person who served the subpoenas. (Ibid.)
., § 2026.010(c).)
LUMINA V. UMINA
(Code of Civil Procedure, § 2026.010(b).)
The procedures for taking oral and written depositions set forth in Chapters 9 (commencing with Section 2025.010), 10 (commencing with Section 2026.010), and 11 (commencing with Section 2028.010) apply to a deposition of a listed trial expert witness except as provided in this article. (Code of Civil Procedure, § 2034.410.)
STEVEN ANDREW KAMIN VS EDGAR ALEJANDRO AVILA-MARTINEZ ET AL
(a); 2026.010, subd. (b).) Lyft objected that Garzon lives in Tennessee, and therefore the notice for the deposition in Los Angeles was defective. Lyft argues that there is no good cause to take Dorton’s deposition. However, Dorton signed verifications in this case, which is a sufficient reason for Plaintiff to take his deposition. Plaintiff states he will take both depositions in Tennessee. Plaintiff’s motion to compel Garzon and Dorton’s depositions is GRANTED.
SAWYERS VS BBD MASS TRANSIT CORP
CCP § 2026.010(b). Defendant shall make herself available for deposition in Pennsylvania no later than March 1, 2020. This ruling is without prejudice for Plaintiff to bring a motion under CCP § 2025.20 to change the location of the deposition. Defendant Sy Morales shall appear for deposition no later than March 1, 2020 on a date to be re-noticed by Plaintiff. If Defense counsel no longer represents this defendant, counsel shall file a substitution of attorney or motion to withdraw.
MICHAEL PARKS VS HUGH KNOWLTON
., § 2026.010, subd. (c).) DISCUSSION In this case, Defendant served a California deposition subpoena on Deponent, who is a resident of Washington, for a deposition in Seattle. (Declaration of Arya Rhodes, Exhibit A.) Defendant should have proceeded under Washington law to compel Deponent’s attendance at deposition or scheduled the deposition in California. Accordingly, the Court quashes the subpoena.
PEOPLE EX. REL. CALONNE V. PINI
Unless the parties agree otherwise as to the time and place of deposition, the Pini Defendants are authorized to obtain a commission for the taking of the deposition at a place consistent with Code of Civil Procedure sections 2025.250, 2025.260, and 2026.010, and to serve any appropriate process to accomplish this deposition. For purposes of this deposition, the deponent is deemed by the court to be an individual rather than an officer, direct, managing agent, or employee of a party.
BRIANA ORNELAS VS SAFEWAY AUTO CENTER, INC.,, ET AL.
Proc., § 2026.010. Rather, evidence code section 1560 explicitly notes that a subpoena served upon the custodian of records in which the business is neither a party not the place where any cause of action is alleged to have arisen should comply with Code Civ. Proc., § 2026.010. (Cal. Evid. Code § 1560.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is MOOT. As noted, pursuant to Code Civ.
KNUDSON, ET AL. V. PORTER, ET AL.
., § 2026.010.) No later than December 1, 2019, Plaintiffs shall submit a proposed Commission To Take Deposition Outside California, using Judicial Council form DISC-030. Plaintiffs shall give notice of the ruling. CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
LISA BURCH ET AL VS INTEX CORP ET AL
., § 2026.010, subd. (c).) In Florida, “whenever a litigant in one state desires to depose a witness residing in another state he must first secure the appointment of a commissioner by the court where the litigation originates. He may then apply to the court having personal jurisdiction over the witness for the process necessary to secure the attendance of the witness. [Citation.]
CCP §2026.010 governs depositions of out-of-state persons. §2026.010(f) permits the Court to issue a commission authorizing the deposition in another state. Specifically, it provides, “On request, the clerk of the court shall issue a commission authorizing the deposition in another state or place.
HODAYA ELFANT ET AL VS CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL CENTER ET AL
., § 2026.010, subd. (c).) For example, in New York, a party must present a subpoena issued by a court of California to the county clerk in the county in which discovery is sought to be collected in New York. (NY CPLR § 3119, subd. (b)(1).) The clerk, in accordance with that court’s procedure, shall promptly issue a subpoena for service upon the person to which the out-of-state subpoena is directed. (NY CPLR § 3119, subd. (b)(2).)
AMR HUSSEIN VS RUSTY ALLEN STARK ET AL
However, in the interest of judicial economy, the Court considers Plaintiff’s motion pursuant to the relevant statute, CCP §2026.010. The Court has the authority to issue a commission authorizing Defendants’ depositions in another state. (CCP §2026.010(f).) Further, if a deponent is a party to the action, the service of the deposition notice is effective to compel that deponent to attend and to testify. (CCP §2026.010(b).)
. § 2026.010(a); Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2026.010. Defendant, Michael J. Guice, M.D. is to lodge or bring to the hearing the Commission (Form Disc-030 and Exhibit A to the Motion)) for the court’s signature. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2026.010(f). A $30 issuance fee for the Commission will also be required, Moving party to give notice.
DESTINY HITCHCOCK VS SANDRA CASTELLINO
“[W]hen a subpoena duces tecum is served upon the custodian of records … and the subpoena requires the production of all or any part of the records of the business, it is sufficient compliance therewith if the custodian or other qualified witness delivers by mail or otherwise a true, legible, and durable copy of all of the records described in the subpoena to the clerk of the court or to another person described in subdivision (d) of Section 2026.010 of the Code of Civil Procedure, together with the affidavit
KEISHA ABDELKADER VS SARMEN MENA CHECAN ET AL
The procedures for taking oral and written depositions set forth in sections 2025.010, 2026.010, and 2028.010 apply to a deposition of a listed trial expert witness except as otherwise provided. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.410.) The service of a proper deposition notice accompanied by the tender of the expert witness fee described in section 2034.430 is effective to require the party employing or retaining the expert to produce the expert for deposition. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.460, subd. (a).)
However, CCP § 2026.010(c) states that “[i]f the deponent is not a party to the action …, a party serving a deposition notice under this section shall use any process and procedures required and available under the laws of the state … where the deposition is to be taken to compel the deponent to attend and to testify, as well as to produce any document, [or] electronically stored information[.]” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2026.010(c) [emphasis added].)
JOSEPH M HUSMAN VS TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP ET AL
Defendants cite only to CCP section 2026.010(c) essentially for the proposition that a party must follow the laws of the forum where the deposition subpoena is to be enforced. However, subsection (c) applies to a “party serving a deposition notice” and requires such a party to abide by the terms of the forum state.
RAFIK Y KAMELL VS HANY BOUSHRA MOURICE GUINDY ET AL
. § 2026.010(b). Should a location not be provided, Plaintiff can move for terminating sanctions.” Since that time, Defendants have refused to disclose Guindy’s location, and Plaintiff now moves for terminating sanctions. Because Defendants have demonstrated that they have no intention of allowing their depositions, the Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. The Court strikes Defendants’ Answer and enters their defaults.