Skip to main content

Is a "meet and confer" required prior to filing a motion to quash subpeona pursuant to 1987.1?

Los Angeles, CA |

My former employer was served with subpoena pursuant to CCP 1985.6.

CCP 1987.1 doesn't say that "meet and confer" required, but I want to make sure.

+ Read More

Filed under: Motions Subpoena
Attorney answers 4

Best Answer
Posted

A meet and confer is not required prior to filing a motion to quash subpoena pursuant to CCP 1987.1. However, under certain circumstances it may not be a bad idea to meet and confer to see the dispute can be resolved or narrowed.

This response is for information purpose only and does not constitute a legal advice. This response does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Asker

Posted

Thank you!

Paul Y. Lee

Paul Y. Lee

Posted

Although CCP 1987.1 does not require you to meet and confer, keep in mind some courts have their own "local local" rule that states that any party filing a motion of any type must first meet and confer with the opposing side to see if the issue can be resolved informally. Only a small minority of courts have such a rule, but check your court's rules to maks sure that there is no such rule in your court.

Posted

I do not believe there is a mandatory meet and confer requirement with a motion to quash a non-party witness. However, you should attempt a meet and confer letter if you have time. Then, your or your employer should move forward with the quash the subpoena with the meet and confer attached as an exhibit to the motion.

Asker

Posted

Thank you. So while NOT mandatory, probably a best practice, correct?

Asker

Posted

Thanks again! It's Orange County, so I'll have to check it out. Thanks again.

Posted

Not required but useful to see if issues can be narrowed.

Posted

No.

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.

Ask a Question

- or -

Search for lawyers by reviews and ratings.

Find a Lawyer