Breaking Barriers to Justice
But the Amoco court imposed an additional obstacle, concluding that because California cannot compel personal attendance, it also cannot compel document production, finding: “and therefore, no jurisdiction to compel the production of documents under § 1987.” This finding contradicts the statutory text and conflates two analytically distinct concepts, testimony compulsion and document production. Code of Civil Procedure § 1987.5 applies to subpoenas duces tecum. It provides for serving document subpoenas and the required affidavit. More importantly, Code of Civil Procedure § 1987.3 carves out an express exception to § 1989’s personal- attendance requirement: “When a subpoena duces tecum is served upon a custodian of records or other qualified witness....and his personal attendance is not required by the terms of the subpoena, § 1989 shall not apply.” The legislative intent stands unmistakable. Where a subpoena seeks only documents, where no personal attendance is demanded, the geographical limitation of § 1989 evaporates. Documents travel across state lines without imposing the burdens that justify limiting testimonial compulsion to California residents. A custodian in Nevada can mail records to California counsel or deposit them with a court without ever setting foot here. The Amoco court did not address § 1987.3’s explicit carve-out. Its holding that California courts cannot compel out-of-state document production, contradicts the plain language of § 1987.3. Courts reconsidering this issue will recognize that Amoco’s extension beyond the personal-attendance limitation constitutes unnecessary dictum unsupported by the statutory scheme.
Moreover, Code of Civil Procedure § 1987(b) establishes a party-applicable production mechanism as an alternative to formal subpoena procedures. This process should logically incorporate the same rules: if subpoenas permit cross-state document production when personal attendance is not required, the party- production analog should operate identically. Any other reading creates an anomalous asymmetry whereby third-party custodians face lighter burdens than parties to the litigation. Attorneys confronting an Amoco objection should distinguish testimonial compulsion from documentary production, cite § 1987.3's explicit carve-out, and argue that the extended holding lacks statutory support.
If the Court Denies Your § 3295 Motion:
If the Court denies your motion seeking financial discovery, all is not lost. § 3295 specifically allows a plaintiff to serve a subpoena requiring production of documents and witnesses at trial for the purpose of establishing net worth of the defendant. Serve the subpoena. Set the production date on the first day of trial, and designate the courtroom as the location for production. When you obtain the finding of malice, fraud, and oppression, the court will order the defendant to produce the witnesses and documents.
The Post-Liability Production: Mike Davidov and StreetScenes
What happens when a plaintiff reaches the punitive phase without having obtained pretrial financial discovery? Two appellate decisions provide a coherent framework, and powerful remedies for defendants who refuse to comply.
32
Consumer Attorneys of California
FORUM July/August 2026
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs