What is a Subpoena Duces Tecum?

Useful Rulings on Subpoena Duces Tecum

Recent Rulings on Subpoena Duces Tecum

JANE HC DOE, A MINOR BY AND THROUGH HER GAURDIAN AD LITEM KIM S. VS TORRANCE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A CALIFORNIA LOCAL PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

CCP § 1985.3(b) states that, 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) (notice to consumer), and proof of service as indicated in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c).

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

KALJIAN SANTA BARBARA LLC V. DR. R. GREG LOWRY, DDS, INC.

It is therefore unclear whether the subpoena served is proper or whether the requirements for a subpoena duces tecum under section 1985 et al. have been met. Notwithstanding, there have been no procedural objections regarding the form of the subpoena. Notwithstanding this procedural confusion, it is clear that the parties have a specific dispute as to whether the individual tax returns are to be produced pursuant to the subpoena.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

PHAN ULLMAN V. LE

Based on Plaintiff’s (Hanh Thuc Phan Ullman) Notice of Taking Off Calendar Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash or Modify Defendants’ Subpoena Duces Tecum (filed on 8-27-20 under ROA No. 28), Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash or Modify Deposition Subpoena (filed on 7-23-20 under ROA No. 19, and scheduled for hearing on 9-29-20) is off calendar.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

JOY SLAGEL VS LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL

Vaghashia’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant’s Subpoena Duces Tecum to Nonparty Accuretta, Inc. is GRANTED. Nonparty Accuretta, Inc. is ordered to comply with the subject deposition subpoena served on March 3, 2020 within 30 days. This is an action by Govind Vaghashia, on behalf of himself and of his company, Graphic Research, Inc. dba GTEK/BYCAN Systems (“Graphic”), against Prashant Vaghashia and Graphic.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA COLLECTION SERVICE, INC. VS CHARLES ALAN LATHAM AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND

Plaintiff’s request “that the Court exercise its inherent power to regulate proceedings in this department by excising from the plaintiff's obligations the interrogatories relating to the defendant's request that plaintiff's counsel work on a Subpoena Duces Tecum list on behalf of the defendant” and contention that such “will obviate the need for a motion for protective order” is unclear, improper and unsupported by any authority. (See Opp. p.6:13-17).

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

BRENT A. ROBINSON VS CHRISTOPHER SERNA, ET AL.

CCP 1985.3(g) provides, in relevant part: 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. Notice of the bringing of that motion shall be given to the witness and deposition officer at least five days prior to production.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

APEL KEUROGHLIAN, ET AL. VS GLEN CENTRE GP LLC

Moreover, although Defendant contends Plaintiff submitted an untimely objection to the subpoena, CCP § 1985.3 states in pertinent part, “[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.” (CCP § 1985.3(g).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

JOSEFINA LUCERO, AN INDIVIDUAL VS AEROTEK, INC., A MARYLAND CORPORATION, ET AL.

CCP § 1985.3(b) states that, 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) (notice to consumer), and proof of service as indicated in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c).

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

WONDERLAND BRANDS CALIFORNIA, LLC VS. DEV BAKERY, LLC

“Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum Issued to COR of USA ePAY, Inc.” (ROA 61, 62); 4. “Motion to Quash Subpoena Purportedly Issued to Link International Group, Ltd.” (ROA 67, 68). Preliminarily, each motion is procedurally defective as Wonderland fails to file a separate statement pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345(a).

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

MUNOZ VS PL HOTEL GROUP LLC

PL Hotel's second motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum served on Bank of America by plaintiffs. ROA 456-461. Plaintiffs filed opposition. ROA 493-497. PL Hotel filed reply. ROA 505-506. 2. Applicable Standards. A. Motions for leave to withdraw are governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 284 and CRC 3.1362. Counsel are directed to use Judicial Council forms MC-051, 052, and 053. B.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

STEWART VS. KARIMI

The notice to consumer must be served “[n]ot less than 10 days prior to the date for production specified in the subpoena duces tecum, plus the additional time provided by Section 1013 if service is by mail” and “[a]t least five days prior to service upon the custodian of the records, plus the additional time provided by Section 1013 if service is by mail.” Code Civ. Proc., § 1985.3, subd. (b)(2) & (3). The notice to consumer states the date for production is August 23, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

MUNOZ VS PL HOTEL GROUP LLC

PL Hotel's second motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum served on Bank of America by plaintiffs. ROA 456-461. Plaintiffs filed opposition. ROA 493-497. PL Hotel filed reply. ROA 505-506. 2. Applicable Standards. A. Motions for leave to withdraw are governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 284 and CRC 3.1362. Counsel are directed to use Judicial Council forms MC-051, 052, and 053. B.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS CHANG HWAN PARK ET AL

Procedural Requirements Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, sections 1985.3, subdivision (e), a subpoena duces tecum that seeks the production of consumer records, served on either the consumer or his attorney shall be accompanied by a notice indicating that (1) records about the consumer are being sought, (2) if the consumer objects the production of records, the consumer shall serve written objections prior to the date of production, and (3) if the party who is seeking records will not agree to cancel the

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

DAVID ALOMATSI VS KINDRED HOSPITAL

Further, despite having been provided the password to the CD, plaintiff nonetheless issued a subpoena duces tecum for Kindred South Bay’s records pertaining to plaintiff. Defendant also argues that plaintiff’s request for sanctions is substantively without support and procedurally defective. He did not comply with Rules of Court Rule 3.1345(c), which requires a separate statement. Further, defendant argues, plaintiff cannot be awarded attorney’s fees because he is self-represented.

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2020

JANE DOE VS ANOUSHIRAVAN JAVAHERI

California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1985.3(g) provides that “[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.”

  • Hearing

    Sep 02, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

AMAG INC, VS MARC ANTHONY CUBAS, ET AL.

A subpoena duces tecum for consumer records must be served on the consumer “at least five days prior to service upon the custodian of the employment records.” (CCP § 1985.3(b)(3).) Killian avers that he served the subpoena on Defendants, at most, one day before serving the banks. (See also Mancinelli Ex. B (correspondence from East West Bank dated May 8, 2020 alerting Ashley Cubas to subpoena).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 02, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MARTA BADE VS CROWN BUILDING MAINTENANCE CO ET AL

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, sections 1985.3, subdivision (e), a subpoena duces tecum that seeks the production of consumer records, served on either the consumer or his attorney shall be accompanied by a notice indicating that (1) records about the consumer are being sought, (2) if the consumer objects the production of records, the consumer shall serve written objections prior to the date of production, and (3) if the party who is seeking records will not agree to cancel the subpoena upon objection

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

DESCHENES VS BUREAU D ELECTRONIQUE APPLIQUEE BEA INC

Plaintiffs sought an order compelling a non-party, ESIS, to comply with a subpoena duces tecum served on it for records plaintiffs believed are "vital to the issues raised" in his complaint. ROA 18. ESIS is the worker's comp carrier for plaintiff's employer, Phillips. The motion was set for April 3, 2020. Also set for that day was a continued CMC. ROA 42-43. [At the initial CMC, problems with service of the pleadings upon Kilroy were brought to the court's attention. See ROA 20, 23, 25, 32.]

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

DESCHENES VS BUREAU D ELECTRONIQUE APPLIQUEE BEA INC

Plaintiffs sought an order compelling a non-party, ESIS, to comply with a subpoena duces tecum served on it for records plaintiffs believed are "vital to the issues raised" in his complaint. ROA 18. ESIS is the worker's comp carrier for plaintiff's employer, Phillips. The motion was set for April 3, 2020. Also set for that day was a continued CMC. ROA 42-43. [At the initial CMC, problems with service of the pleadings upon Kilroy were brought to the court's attention. See ROA 20, 23, 25, 32.]

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SHANNAN LYNETTE WYNN ET AL VS OPRAH G. WINFREY ET AL

Bailey declares that Plaintiff proposes to issue Subpoena Duces Tecum to Endeavor and its agents within a timeline of 60 days. (Decl. of Bailey ¶8.) Bailey’s declaration also appears to assert that the apparent connections between various defendants through Endeavor demonstrate that the materials could have been transmitted. (Decl. of Bailey ¶9.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2020

DORIS COLEMAN ET AL VS METRO ET AL

Motion by Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority to Order USC Verdugo Hills Hospital’s Compliance With the Subpoena Duces Tecum is TAKEN OFF CALENDAR. Motions to compel production of documents pursuant to a subpoena issued to a nonparty must be personally served on the non-party. (Cal Rules of Court, Rule 3.1346.) The proof of service indicates the motion was served only on the parties to the action and not the subpoenaed non-party. Accordingly, the motion is procedurally defective.

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2020

LO VS. GOTMORTGAGE.COM

At issue is a subpoena duces tecum (“Subpoena”) issued by Plaintiff’s counsel on February 25, 2020, and served on nonparty deponent Nuttall & Patel, LLP (“Nuttall & Patel”). (Cho Decl., ¶ 8, Ex. D.) The Subpoena requests “[a]ny documents which reflect Tain Lai Lo having an ownership interest in Gotmortgage.com, such records would include, but are not limited to: A.

  • Hearing

    Aug 28, 2020

IVANIA C. LOPEZ GOMEZ VS ASMIK BABLOYAN, ET AL.

Discussion Defendants Asmik, Vahe, Lusine, FCM, and Gohar (hereinafter, Defendants) move to quash a subpoena duces tecum served on East West Bank. The subpoena contains two document requests.

  • Hearing

    Aug 28, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

RONALD AUSTIN VS IRWINDALE POLICE DEPARTMENT

In State of California, the state Department of Transportation claimed a privilege under section 20012 in response to a subpoena duces tecum seeking production of accident reports of collisions at the location of the incident in question. 37 Cal.3d at 850. These cases do not aid Austin because the test for discovery in civil litigation and disclosure under the CPRA are different. See Shepherd v.

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

NOAH'S ARK PROCESSORS LLC VS VALUE MEATS INC

Third Party James Dickman’s motion to quash civil subpoena duces tecum to Sean Lowe is MOOT. II. Third Party James Dickman’s motion to quash civil subpoena duces tecum to David Mannion is MOOT. Moving Party to give NOTICE. Third Party moves to quash subpoenas issued to Sean Lowe and David Mannion. In opposition, Plaintiff Noah’s Ark Processors, LLC advises the court that it has excused Sean Lowe, and that it has not served David Mannion with a subpoena.

  • Hearing

    Aug 25, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 36     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.