Source: https://trellis.law/ca/motion-type/noticing-out-of-state-deposition-339
Timestamp: 2020-07-15 05:52:44
Document Index: 40168101

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2026', '§ 2026', '§ 1989', '§ 2029', '§ 1987', '§ 1987', '§ 2026', '§ 2026', '§ 1560', '§ 2025', '§ 2025', '§ 2026', '§ 2025', '§ 2025']

Out of State Deponent
How to Take Deposition - Foreign Jurisdiction (Outside California)
Depositions in a California action are generally governed by the rules set forth in the Code of Civil Procedure, regardless of where the deposition is to take place. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2026.010, subd. (a).) Because a California court does not have personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state third party witness, however, the parties in the California action must use the legal processes of the state of residence of the third party witness to compel the witness to attend, testify and produce documents at a deposition. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2026.010, subd. (c).) “Section 1989 provides that “[a] witness ... is not obliged to attend as a witness before any court, judge, justice or any other officer, unless the witness is a resident within the state at the time of service.” (Code of Civil Procedure, § 1989.)
California has also adopted a version of the Interstate and International Depositions Discovery Act under Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2029.100-2029.900. Further, Code Civ. Proc., § 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. (see Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.3.) However, this section does not excuse compliance with Code Civ. 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.)
Under CCP 2026.010, a party may take an oral deposition in another state. A party desiring to depose a natural person who is a party, or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, at a place more distant than that provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.250, may move for an order directing the deponent to attend a more distant deposition. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.260(b).)
In determining the motion, the court must consider any factor tending to show whether the interest of justice will be served by granting the order, including:
whether the moving party filed the suit locally;
whether the deponent will be present to testify at trial;
the convenience of the deponent;
the deponent’s whereabouts at the time for which the deposition is scheduled;
feasibility of conducting the depositions by written question or by discovery method other than a deposition;
number of depositions sought to be taken beyond the geographic limits; and
expense to each party in requiring them to take the deposition where the deponent resides.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.260(b).)
If the deponent is a party, service of a deposition notice is effective to compel the deponent to attend at a place within 75 miles of the deponent's business or residence. Such a deposition shall be conducted either (1) under supervision of a person authorized to administer oaths by the laws of the US or of the place of examination, and is not otherwise disqualified, or (2) before a person appointed by the court. Any such appointment authorizes that person to administer oaths and to take testimony.
The clerk of the court issues a commission authorizing the deposition in another state on request, which requests that process issue in the place where the examination is to be held, requiring attendance and enforcing obligations to produce documents and electronically stored information (ESI), and answer questions.
In order to accommodate jurisdictions that require a formal request or commission from the California court to use their legal process, the Code of Civil Procedure provides for a commission to be issued by the clerk of the court upon request, or, if the jurisdiction requires a court order, upon ex parte application. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2026.010, subd. (f).)
Note that while section 2025.260, subdivision (a), provides for a court to permit a deposition of a party or officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party at a place “that is more distant than that permitted under Section 2025.250 [75 miles from the deponent's residence or within the county where the action is pending and within 150 miles of the deponent's residence],” section 2025.260 does not provide for those depositions to be held at a place more distant than that permitted by section 1989. There is simply no conflict between the plain language of sections 1989 and 2025.260. Section 2025.260 permits depositions more than 75 (or 150) miles from a deponent's residence, but section 1989 restricts a deponent from being required to attend a California deposition if the deponent is not a California resident.” (Toyota Motor Corp. v. Superior Court (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1107, 1113.) This does not leave a party without the ability to depose these most qualified persons. The party can depose the most qualified persons in their states of residence.
Useful Rulings on Noticing Out of State Deposition
Nature of Proceedings: Order Authorize Issuance to Obtain Records Defendants’ Motion for Order Authorizing Issuance of Commissions for Out-of-State Depositions (Business Records Only) Ruling: Defendants’ motion for an order authorizing issuance of commissions for out-of-state, business records only depositions is granted in pa...
..is the Chair and CEO of Koosharem. Global provided a labor force to Del Monte Corporation at different locations around the country. Global and Koosharem entered into an Asset Purchase and Sale Agreement on February 23, 2006, under which Global agreed to sell and Koosharem agreed to purchase certain assets associated with Global’s Del Monte customer accounts. Koosharem also purchased the right t...
NAZARETYAN VS SHEFFER
Motion: To Take Deposition Beyond Geographic Limits. Moving Party: Plaintiff Varuzhan Nazaretyan. Responding Party Defendant Diana Shaffer. Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to take Defendant’s deposition beyond the geographic limits set by Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.260 is granted on the condition Plaintiff advance reasonable expenses to Defendant to travel to the California deposition. (Code...
..Civil Procedure section 2025.250, may move for an order directing the deponent to attend a more distant deposition. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.260(b)). In determining the motion, the court must consider any factor tending to show whether the interest of justice will be served by granting the order, including (1) whether the moving party filed the suit locally; (2) whether the deponent will be prese...
THUNDERBUTTE ENTERPRISES, LLC v. GENERAL STAR INDEMNITY
Defendant/Cross-Defendant Deatsch Ins. Agency, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Cross- Defendant Bass Underwriters, Inc. to Produce a Person Qualified for Deposition. Defendant/Cross-Complainant Deatsch Ins. Agency, Inc. (Deatsch) noticed the deposition of the person most qualified to testify as to 21 categories of information related to cross- defendant Bass Underwriters, Inc.’s (Bass) liability in this a...
..tsch states that while cross-defendant Bass has indicated it will designate a person most knowledgeable as to 17 of the 21 categories, cross- defendant Bass contends that the only persons most knowledgeable in the corporation concerning the other four categories are located in Florida and states those persons will not be produced for deposition in California. Defendant/Cross-Complainant Deatsch mo...
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT AMR HUSSEIN, Plaintiff, vs. RUSTY STARK, et al., Defendants. Case No.: BC619243 [TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION Dept. 3 1:30 p.m. June 12, 2019 Plaintiff Amr Hussein’s Motion to Compel Defendants’ Deposition is Granted pursuant to CCP 2026.010(f). The clerk shall issue a commis...
..s Counsel may unilaterally set the deposition with five days’ notice. The Court denies Plaintiff’s request for sanctions. Plaintiff propounded a first notice of deposition on Defendants on December 7, 2017 setting the deposition for January 25, 2018. On January 10, 2018 Defendants objected to the notice of deposition on the grounds that it was unilaterally noticed without a meet and confer to det...
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS (CCP §§ 2025.410, 2025.480 TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Briana Ornelas’s motion to compel compliance with deposition subpoena for production of business records is MOOT. Defendant Safeway Auto Center Inc.’s motion to quash th...
..ntiff purchased the vehicle, it died in the middle of an intersection and Plaintiff learned it has been involved in an accident and was in unsafe condition when sold. REQUEST FOR RELIEF: On July 25, 2019, Defendant Safeway filed the instant motion to quash Plaintiff’s deposition subpoena for business records to non-party Carfax, Inc. Defendant argues that the court should quash the subpoena for p...
Recent Rulings on Noticing Out of State Deposition