Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 20STCV13372, Date: 2023-03-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV13372    Hearing Date: March 3, 2023    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION TO QUASH

            Defendant Dunn-Edward Corporation seeks to quash a trial subpoena Plaintiffs served on Pfizer, Inc. pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1.  Defendant argues the subpoena should be quashed because none of the requested documents will be admissible.  (Motion at p. 4.)  Defendant states the documents are too old, dating back 40 years, for any Pfizer witness to have knowledge establishing them as business records.  (Id. at p. 6.) 

            Section 1987.1, subdivision (a) allows a court to quash a subpoena.  It does not state that a trial subpoena can be quashed because one party thinks the requested documents will ultimately not be admitted at trial.  It is premature to determine whether any requested document will be admitted into evidence.  The production of documents pursuant to a subpoena does not deprive Defendant of the ability to object if Plaintiffs seek to have any of the documents admitted into evidence.

            Further, whether or not the documents can be established as business records, there are other ways for documents to be admitted.  For example, the documents may be self-authenticating on their face (which the court cannot determine because the documents were not attached to the motion) and may be offered for a non-hearsay purpose such as notice or knowledge.  Or they may be admissible under Evidence Code section 1331.  The court cannot predict at this point whether Plaintiffs will be able to establish the admissibility of any of the subpoenaed documents.

            The motion is DENIED without prejudice to contemporaneous objections at trial.

            The moving party is to give notice.