Source: https://trellis.law/ca/motion-type/foreign-subpoena-for-discovery-in-california-394
Timestamp: 2020-07-11 23:37:39
Document Index: 281610739

Matched Legal Cases: ['§2029', '§8', '§ 2029', '§ 2029', '§ 2029', '§ 2029', '§ 2029', '§ 1987', '§ 2025', '§ 1987', '§ 1987', '§ 2026', '§ 1560', '§ 2026', '§ 1560', '§ 2026', 'Case No: 19', '§ 2026', '§ 2026', '§ 2016', '§2029', '§2029', '§2029', '§2029', '§ 2029', '§2029', '§8', '§2029', '§ 2029', '§1987', '§2026', '§2026', '§ 2029', '§ 2026']

What is a Foreign Subpoena for Discovery in California?
Interstate and International Depositions Act
Subpoenas issued by courts in another state or county (a foreign subpoena) may be enforced in California under the Interstate and International Depositions and Discovery Act. (Code Civ. Proc. §2029.100 et seq.; see also Rutter Guide, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial (June 2018 Update) Ch. 8E-7, §8:620.20.) The Interstate and International Depositions and Discovery Act allows an out-of-state party to serve a subpoena on a third party in California. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2029.300.)
Issuing a Foreign Subpoena
“Pursuant to the Interstate and International Depositions and Discovery Act, a party to a proceeding in a foreign jurisdiction may obtain discovery in California by retaining a local attorney to issue a subpoena.” (Digital Music News, LLC v. Super. Ct. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216, 223, citing Code Civ. Proc., § 2029.350, disapproved on another ground in Williams v. Super. Ct. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557, fn. 8.) Additionally, a party may take a foreign subpoena to the clerk of the superior court in the county in which discovery is to be conducted and request that the clerk issue a local subpoena. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2029.300(a).)
There is no reciprocity stated in the Law Revision Commission Comments that follow Section 2029.600. The Comment does not represent that the statute was designed to protect courts and citizens of other states. This may be inferred by California's acceptance of the Interstate and International Depositions and Discovery Act, but it is not explicitly stated in the Comment.
“If a dispute arises relating to the subpoena, any party may petition the superior court where the discovery is to be conducted for a protective order or an order enforcing, quashing, or modifying the subpoena.” (Digital Music News, supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at p. 223, citing Code Civ. Proc., § 2029.600.) Although a party proceeds by filing a petition under Code of Civil Procedure section 2029.600, the resolution of the merits of the dispute “is nevertheless governed by California’s Civil Discovery Act, section 2016.010 et seq.” (Digital Music News, supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at pp. 223–24, (citing Code Civ. Proc., § 2029.500).)
Jurisdiction of a California Court
A California court has the jurisdiction and authority to quash, and issue a protective order, as to deposition notices and attendant requests for production of documents that were commissioned by a California court but actually issued by other states where the depositions would take place. Section 2029.60 states that such motions "may" be filed in the superior court in the county in which the discovery is to be conducted and "if so filed" shall comply with the applicable rules or statutes of this state. The language is permissive or discretionary, and not mandatory. (Parks v. Superior Court (1971) 19 Cal. App. 3d 188, 191.)
The Law Revision Commission Comments following Section 2029.600 make clear that the statute was intended to protect the rights and interests of California citizens, the subjects of discovery, where the discovery occurs in California, but the action is filed out of state.
Example of Application of Jurisdiction
The design of Section 2029.600 is exemplified by Digital Music News LLC. v. Escape Media Group, LLC (real party in interest), where the underlying lawsuit was filed in New York and involved allegations that the Defendant internet music provider stole music from the Plaintiff music company. (Digital Music News LLC. v. Escape Media Group, LLC (real party in interest) (2014) 226 Cal. App. 4th 216.) The subject of the discovery was not a party and not in New York, but a California Internet Media company that published a comment about the controversy from an anonymous "inside" source corroborating Plaintiff's core allegations. Defendant sought and obtained a subpoena from the California Court under Code of Civil Procedure Section 2029 requiring the California Media Company to reveal the identity of the person making the comment. The Media Company both opposed the subpoena in the California Court and appealed the issuing of the subpoena on various First Amendment and privacy grounds to the California Appellate Court. The statute enabled the California Court to provide protection to its citizen, the California subject of discovery. And it was the California real party in interest, the target of the subpoena, who independently availed itself of the protections of Section 2029 by opposing the subpoena all the way through the appellate court process. There is no mention that the New York Plaintiff was involved in the controversy whatsoever.
California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1010(a) allows a party to take an oral deposition by phone provided that notice served with the notice of deposition indicates that the deposition will be by phone and the party makes all arrangements for others to participate in the deposition in an equivalent manner. Any party may also appear personally without giving prior notice.
The court may make any other 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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.1.)
Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.22(a)(5) expressly mandates that a subpoena shall notify the deponent of any intention to videotape the deposition.
Code of Civil Procedure § 1987.3 provides that a subpoena duces tecum may served upon by the custodian of records or another qualified witness as provided in evidence code section 1560 even if the witness is not a resident of the state at the time of service. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.3.) However, this section does not excuse compliance with Code of Civil Procedure § 2026.010. Rather, Evidence Code § 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 of Civil Procedure § 2026.010. (Evid. Code § 1560.)
Code of Civil Procedure § 2026.010 governs the taking of discovery in another state in an action filed in California.
Useful Rulings on Foreign Subpoena for Discovery in California
HASSAN DANDACHLI VS SONA MELIKYAN
Dandachli v Melikyan Petition to compel attendance at deposition and production of documents Calendar: 34 Case No: 19BBCP00077 Hearing Date: 3/29/19 Action Filed: 2/28/19 Trial Date: N/A MP: Petitioner Hassan Dandachli RP: None ALLEGATIONS: Petitioner Hassan Dandachli filed this petition for an order compelling Respondent Sona Melikyan to attend her deposition and produce business record...
..erlying Action”). (Whitney Decl., ¶4.) Ms. Whitney states that Respondent previously provided social media and email marketing services to both parties in this business dispute and thus has unique personal knowledge relevant to the issues of misappropriation of customer lists, logos, and business goodwill in the underlying lawsuit. (Id., ¶4.) RELIEF REQUESTED: Petitioner moves for an order compe...
MATTHIAS LENZ VS CPP KIMBALL LLC
Non-party Petitioners Matthias Lenz and Brian Biel’s Petition to Quash Deposition Subpoenas is GRANTED. I. Jurisdiction Under CCP § 2026.010 CCP § 2026.010, subdivision (c), provides: “If 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, territory, or insu...
..rnia, this Court has jurisdiction. II. Meet and Confer Sufficient “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (CCP § 2016.040.) Both parties argue that the other failed to meet and confer in good faith. (Compare Stoll Decl. with Morris Decl.) However, a brie...
Cable News Network, Inc. v. The Leland Stanford Junior University, et al.
I. Background This is an action to compel a local deponent’s compliance with a deposition subpoena for records to be used in an out-of-state proceeding. Physician Michael Black sued Cable News Network, Inc. (“CNN”) for defamation after it ran a story about high mortality rates for infants and children undergoing open heart surgery in the Pediatric Cardiac Surgery Program he manages at St. Mary’s...
..so, CNN sought records from Dr. Black’s former employer—the Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital at Leland Stanford Junior University (“Stanford”)—which are at the heart of the present discovery dispute. In October 2017, CNN served Stanford with a deposition subpoena for the production of business records. (Humphreys Decl., Ex. B.) It also served Dr. Black with a privacy notice. (Humphreys D...
BACON VS. SEOP, INC.
PETITION TO COMPLETE ENFORCEMENT OF OUT OF STATE SUBPOENA Pursuant to CCP §2029.350, “if a party to a proceeding pending in a foreign jurisdiction retains an attorney licensed to practice in this state, who is an active member of the State Bar, and that attorney receives the original or a true and correct copy of a foreign subpoena, the attorney may issue a subpoena [provided that the subpoena] (1...
..conducted; [and] (5) be on a form prescribed by the Judicial Council.” A subpoena issued under this article “shall be personally served in compliance with the law of this state, including, without limitation, Section 1985.” CCP §2029.400. The latter involves inclusion of a good cause affidavit “specifying the exact matters or things desired to be produced, setting forth in full detail the material...
Plaintiff Charles P. Garcia’s motion to quash is DENIED. On December 27, 2018, Plaintiff Charles P. Garcia brought this employment suit against Defendants ALPFA Inc., ALPFA Foundation (collectively, “ALPFA”). Plaintiff also sues the current/former Board members of ALPFA Defendants Hector Perez, Yvonne Garcia, Daniel Villao, Gabriel Rodriguez Jr., Reynaldo Gonzalez, Damaris Schneider, Genaro Perez...
..n for 1) wrongful termination; 2) retaliation; 3) breach of contract; 4) waiting time penalties; 5) intentional interference with contractual relations; 6) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage; 7) negligent interference with prospective economic advantage; 8) promissory estoppel; 9) intentional infliction of emotional distress; 10) negligence; 11) breach of fiduciary duty o...
UNITED AMERICAN PROPERTIES, INC. VS. BAKER
1.MOTION - PETITION FOR RELIEF IN DISCOVERY DISPUTE RELATED TO OUT-OF-STATE ACTION These are cross-motions in a special petition regarding discovery in an out-of-state marital dissolution action. Douglas Baker (hereinafter “Douglas”) filed a marital dissolution action in Memphis, Tennessee (CH-17-0980), looking to divorce his wife Kimberly. During the course of that dissolution proceeding, a quest...
..uglas caused to be served upon non-party John Young (hereinafter “John”) a deposition subpoena for live testimony and production of records pertaining to Kimberly’s shared interests in any real estate or trust, as well as her interest in the Lincoln Navigator. UAP and John both objected to the subpoenas. John has an ownership in UAP. John is Kimberly’s father. So, to simplify things, Doug is tryin...
Recent Rulings on Foreign Subpoena for Discovery in California
Sacramento County, CA (6)
PETITION TO COMPLETE ENFORCEMENT OF OUT OF STATE SUBPOENA Pursuant to CCP §2029.350, “if a party to a proceeding pending in a foreign jurisdiction retains an attorney licensed to practice in this state, who is an active member of the State Bar, and that attorney receives the original or a true and correct copy of a foreign subpoena, the attorney may issue a subpoena [provided that the subpoena] (1) incorporate the terms used in the foreign subpoena; (2) [include] the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of
In Digital, a foreign subpoena from New York was brought to California, and the parties moved to compel that subpoena in California. Defendants assert that because the dispute was brought in the state where the discovery was sought, and not the state where the subpoena was issued, that the same should hold true here.
ACACIA COMMUNICATIONS, INC. V. FIBERHOME TELECOM USA INC.
“[I]f a party to a proceeding pending in a foreign jurisdiction retains an attorney licensed to practice in this state, who is an active member of the State Bar, and that attorney receives the original or a true and correct copy of a foreign subpoena, the attorney may issue a subpoena.” (Code Civ. Proc., §2029.350, subd. (a).) Under this authority, Acacia’s counsel in California issued the Subpoena at issue on August 15, 2018 after receiving the foreign (Massachusetts) subpoena.
Additionally, a party may take a foreign subpoena to the clerk of the superior court in the county in which discovery is to be conducted and request that the clerk issue a local subpoena.4 (Code Civ. Proc., § 2029.300, subd. (a).) “If a dispute arises relating to the subpoena, any party may petition the superior court where the discovery is to be conducted for a protective order or an order enforcing, quashing, or modifying the subpoena.”
SIZE IT LLC VS ASICS AMERICA CORPORATION ET AL
Plaintiffs move to tax deposition costs as follows: Filing fees to New Jersey Superior Court for the Issuance of a Foreign Subpoena to Compel the Attendance of a Third-Party Deponent Who Resides in New Jersey for R. Mahan ($50.00). DENY Although this not a deposition cost, it is a filing fee which will be allowed. Per the Buese Decl., ¶ 68 and Exh. 58, this is not a duplicate fee as the $50 fee paid on July 14, 2017.
Subpoenas issued by courts in another state or county (a foreign subpoena) may be enforced in California under the Interstate and International Depositions and Discovery Act. (CCP §2029.100 et seq.; see also Rutter Guide, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial (June 2018 Update) Ch. 8E-7, §8:620.20.)
Pursuant to CCP §2029.350, a California attorney may issue a subpoena for discovery in-state if “that attorney receives the original or a true and correct copy of a foreign subpoena” and the California subpoena fully incorporates “the terms used in the foreign subpoena.” In order to assure both conditions have been met, local counsel generally attaches a copy of the out-of-state subpoena and checks box 6.
BAKER VS. YOUNG
Similarly, CCP section 2029.350(b)(1) requires that a subpoena issued under this section “shall incorporate the terms used in the foreign subpoena.” Box 4 is not checked in the subpoenas here. (See Exhs. A, B.) It is undisputable that the subpoenas do not incorporate the terms used in the Utah subpoenas. Further, CCP section 2025.22(a)(5) expressly mandates that a subpoena shall notify the deponent of any intention to videotape the deposition.
HENRY DOANE, ET AL., VS GUS PARASKEVOULAKOS
If a party to an out-of-state legal proceeding retains a California lawyer and provides the lawyer with the original or a copy of the foreign subpoena, the California lawyer may issue a subpoena to a local resident without prior court approval. See CCP § 2029.350(a). The California deposition subpoena served on the Live Nation attaches the Wisconsin subpoena and was therefore properly issued against Live Nation. Second, the deposition subpoena’s document requests are proper under CC §1987.1.
RIC1412607
Nothing in CCP §2026.010(c) requires a copy of the foreign subpoena to be served on Plaintiff. CCP §2026.010(c) requires compliance with the laws of the state where the deposition is to occur. Plaintiff must challenge the subpoenas in the foreign courts, as Plaintiff is not challenging the substance (i.e. relevance, privacy, etc.). The foreign states should determine whether Defendant complied with those states’ procedures for obtaining the subpoenas.
Judge John W. Vineyard
ROD MESSECA VS KRISTEN HUNSBERGER
Although plaintiff has objected to defendant’s deposition subpoenas by citing the Interstate and International Depositions and Discovery Act, CCP §§ 2029.200-2029.900, that Act is inapplicable here because it provides a procedure for having a deposition subpoena issued in California based on a “foreign subpoena” issued by another state or foreign nation. Instead, the statute which governs the taking of discovery in another state in an action filed in California is CCP § 2026.010.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CA. VS. NATIVE WHOLESALE SUPPLY
In September 2016, NWSC served subpoenas to Person Under Foreign Subpoena (the "Challenged Subpoenas") on Philip Morris USA Inc. (PM USA) seeking deposition testimony and documents related to communications exchanged by PM USA with legislative representatives of the State of California concerning the legislative purpose and intent of California Senate Bill 822 (1999), referred to in this action as the "Directory Statute."
Judge Judy Holzer Hersher
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA EX REAL EDMUND G BROWN JR ATTORNEY GENERAL VS. NATIVE WHOLESALE SUPPLY COMPANY
Judge Alan G. Perkins
Judge Brian R. Van Camp
MICHAEL JOHNSON VS R&R AUCTION COMPANY LLC
The deposition subpoena must incorporate the terms used in the foreign subpoena and contain the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all counsel of record in the proceeding in which the subpoena relates and of any party not represented by counsel. MT R. Civ. Proc., Rule 28, subd. (c)(2)(C). The deposition subpoena must also state the title of the action, the out-of-state court in which the action is pending, and its case number, and the name of the Montana court that issued the subpoena. MT R. Civ.