Jump to content

Since Target National Bank v. Rocha, should I specify that a subpoena for a CCP 98 witness only be served personally to that witness, and no one else?

Recommended Posts

Before Target v. Rocha, I understand that CCP 98 declarants commonly gave attorney addresses for service( as some of the lawyers on Avvo.com recently said you could not object to--I wonder what they think about Target National Bank v. Rocha). Apparently, the CCP 98 could be admitted as evidence after a subpoena was served to the attorney address, instead of personally to the witness. After Target National Bank v. Rocha, should I ask the process server to only serve the witness, and no one else?  Can I count on my judge (same county as T v. R) to go with that ruling?

And here's another interesting tidbit: What if the address is not the attorney's office, as stated on the CCP 98, but is actually a UPS Store?

The declarant is an out-of-state witness.

My goal is to get evidence from the process server that the declarant was not available for service, so I can use it to exclude the CCP 98.


I would appreciate replies from people who have been through this, and I would really appreciate replies from lawyers licensed in CA. 

Thank you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.