Thus, the Supreme Court listed the following seven so-called Alhambra factors “that should be considered by a trial court in considering whether good cause has been shown to enforce a subpoena that has been challenged by a motion to quash”: While there is no statutory requirement for “good cause affidavit” before the subpoena may be issued-unlike civil subpoenas-in order to defend a subpoena against a motion to quash, the subpoenaing party must establish good cause to acquire the subpoenaed records. Under Penal Code Section 1326(a), various officials or persons, including defense counsel, may issue a criminal subpoena duces tecum. The Court, noting it “has not previously articulated a clear roadmap or set of factors to be applied by trial courts in this context,” provided trial courts and practitioners specific guidance to follow when considering a motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum issued by a criminal defendant and directed to a third party. Superior Court (Lance Touchstone), S245203, which examines the enforceability of third-party subpoenas issued by criminal defendants in California. Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, who authored the opinion on behalf of a unanimous Court (as well as a separate concurring opinion), stated that “there is surprisingly little guidance in the case law and secondary literature with regard to the appropriate inquiry” for this issue. On August 13, 2020, the Supreme Court of California issued its decision in Facebook, Inc. Long-Term Care/Long-Term Services and Supports.Technology and Intellectual Property Litigation.TCPA Compliance and Class Action Defense.Investigations, Compliance and White Collar Defense.Intellectual Property Protection and Enforcement.Government Litigation and Administrative Law.Financial Services Litigation and Enforcement.
0 kommentar(er)
