Quashed Subpoena for Testimony
We persuaded a federal court in the Southern District of California to quash a trial subpoena issued to one of our clients, so our client—a medical doctor in Houston—was never required to testify in court.
After a civil plaintiff subpoenaed our client to testify by video, we quickly identified binding precedent from the Ninth Circuit that prohibited such a subpoena. Under the normal rules of civil procedure, a non-party witness typically cannot be subpoenaed to testify more than 100 miles from where he resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person. We identified a Ninth Circuit case holding that those limitations applied even to a subpoena that called for video testimony. “Despite changes in technology …, the rule governing [a] court’s subpoena power has not changed.”[1] In light of that precedent, the court agreed that our client could not be subpoenaed to provide testimony in California, even by video.
[1]In re Kirkland, 75 F.4th 1030, 1051–52 (9th Cir. 2023).
