Code Details

Code of Civil Procedure – CCP
PART 4. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS [1855 – 2107] ( Heading of Part 4 amended by Stats. 1965, Ch. 299. )
TITLE 3. OF THE PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE [1985 – 2015.6] ( Title 3 enacted 1872. )

CHAPTER 2. Means of Production [1985 – 1997] ( Chapter 2 enacted 1872. )

Exact Statute Text

(a) Except as provided in Sections 68097.1 to 68097.8, inclusive, of the Government Code, the service of a subpoena is made by delivering a copy, or a ticket containing its substance, to the witness personally, giving or offering to the witness at the same time, if demanded by him or her, the fees to which he or she is entitled for travel to and from the place designated, and one day’s attendance there. The service shall be made so as to allow the witness a reasonable time for preparation and travel to the place of attendance. The service may be made by any person. If service is to be made on a minor, service shall be made on the minor’s parent, guardian, conservator, or similar fiduciary, or if one of those persons cannot be located with reasonable diligence, service shall be made on any person having the care or control of the minor or with whom the minor resides or by whom the minor is employed, and on the minor if the minor is 12 years of age or older. If the minor is alleged to come within the description of Section 300, 601, or 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code and the minor is not in the custody of a parent or guardian, regardless of the age of the minor, service also shall be made upon the designated agent for service of process at the county child welfare department or the probation department under whose jurisdiction the minor has been placed.

(b) In the case of the production of a party to the record of any civil action or proceeding or of a person for whose immediate benefit an action or proceeding is prosecuted or defended or of anyone who is an officer, director, or managing agent of any such party or person, the service of a subpoena upon any such witness is not required if written notice requesting the witness to attend before a court, or at a trial of an issue therein, with the time and place thereof, is served upon the attorney of that party or person. The notice shall be served at least 10 days before the time required for attendance unless the court prescribes a shorter time. If entitled thereto, the witness, upon demand, shall be paid witness fees and mileage before being required to testify. The giving of the notice shall have the same effect as service of a subpoena on the witness, and the parties shall have those rights and the court may make those orders, including the imposition of sanctions, as in the case of a subpoena for attendance before the court.

(c) If the notice specified in subdivision (b) is served at least 20 days before the time required for attendance, or within any shorter period of time as the court may order, it may include a request that the party or person bring with him or her books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things. The notice shall state the exact materials or things desired and that the party or person has them in his or her possession or under his or her control. Within five days thereafter, or any other time period as the court may allow, the party or person of whom the request is made may serve written objections to the request or any part thereof, with a statement of grounds. Thereafter, upon noticed motion of the requesting party, accompanied by a showing of good cause and of materiality of the items to the issues, the court may order production of items to which objection was made, unless the objecting party or person establishes good cause for nonproduction or production under limitations or conditions. The procedure of this subdivision is alternative to the procedure provided by Sections 1985 and 1987.5 in the cases herein provided for, and no subpoena duces tecum shall be required.

Subject to this subdivision, the notice provided in this subdivision shall have the same effect as is provided in subdivision (b) as to a notice for attendance of that party or person.

(Amended by Stats. 2012, Ch. 72, Sec. 5. (SB 1574) Effective January 1, 2013.)

Code of Civil Procedure § 1987 Summary

California Code of Civil Procedure § 1987 outlines the rules for serving subpoenas and notices to compel a person’s attendance or the production of evidence in a civil case. It establishes two primary methods:

1. Personal Subpoena Service (Subdivision a): This method is typically used for non-parties to a lawsuit. It requires delivering a copy of the subpoena (or a ticket summarizing it) directly to the witness. At the same time, if the witness requests it, they must be given travel fees and one day’s attendance fees. Service must provide the witness with reasonable time to prepare and travel. Any person can serve the subpoena. Special rules apply when serving a minor: service must generally be made on a parent, guardian, conservator, or similar fiduciary. If these individuals cannot be found, service goes to anyone with care/control of the minor or where the minor resides/is employed. If the minor is 12 or older, they must also be served. Additionally, specific rules apply for minors involved with child welfare or probation departments.

2. Notice to Attorney (Subdivision b & c): This method simplifies compelling attendance and production from parties to a lawsuit, or individuals closely associated with a party (like an officer, director, or managing agent). Instead of a formal subpoena, a written “notice” requesting attendance is served on that party’s attorney.
* For Attendance (Subdivision b): The notice must be served at least 10 days before the required attendance, though a court can shorten this time. Like a subpoena, the witness is entitled to fees and mileage if demanded. This notice carries the same legal weight as a subpoena, allowing the court to impose sanctions for non-compliance.
* For Document Production (Subdivision c): If the notice for attendance is served at least 20 days prior (or a shorter time ordered by the court), it can also request the production of specific books, documents, electronically stored information, or other items the party possesses. The notice must clearly describe the desired materials. The receiving party has five days (or a court-ordered period) to object in writing, stating their grounds. If objections are made, the requesting party must file a motion, show good cause, and prove the materiality of the items. The court can then order production unless the objecting party can show good cause for not producing or for producing under specific conditions. This method for document production is an alternative to a subpoena duces tecum and has the same legal effect as a notice for attendance.

Purpose of Code of Civil Procedure § 1987

Code of Civil Procedure § 1987 serves as a foundational statute for ensuring the proper functioning of the California civil justice system. Its primary purpose is to establish clear, fair, and efficient procedures for compelling individuals to appear in court or at depositions, and to produce relevant documents and information.

Legislatively, this statute addresses the inherent challenge of gathering necessary evidence and testimony to resolve disputes. Without clear rules, parties could easily evade participation, hindering the truth-seeking process. Subdivision (a) ensures that non-parties receive adequate notice and compensation when called upon to assist the court. Subdivisions (b) and (c) streamline the process for obtaining evidence from *parties* to a lawsuit, recognizing that their attorneys are already engaged in the litigation. This avoids the redundancy of serving formal subpoenas on individuals who are already represented and directly involved, promoting judicial economy and reducing unnecessary procedural hurdles.

By outlining specific timeframes, compensation requirements, and an objection process for document requests, the statute aims to balance the need for discovery with protections against undue burden or the disclosure of irrelevant or privileged information. Ultimately, CCP § 1987 is critical for facilitating discovery, ensuring due process, and upholding the court’s authority to compel cooperation necessary for a just resolution of civil actions, including personal injury cases.

Real-World Example of Code of Civil Procedure § 1987

Imagine a personal injury case where “Maria” was injured in a car accident caused by “David.” Maria’s attorney needs to gather evidence to prove David’s negligence and Maria’s damages.

Scenario 1: Subpoena for a Non-Party Witness (CCP § 1987(a))
Maria’s attorney believes Dr. Smith, Maria’s treating physician, has crucial testimony regarding her injuries and prognosis. Dr. Smith is not a party to the lawsuit. Maria’s attorney drafts a subpoena for Dr. Smith to appear for a deposition. A process server personally delivers the subpoena to Dr. Smith’s office. At the same time, the process server offers Dr. Smith the statutory witness fees for one day’s attendance and mileage for travel, which Dr. Smith accepts. The service is made two weeks before the deposition, giving Dr. Smith reasonable time to review Maria’s medical records and prepare.

Scenario 2: Notice to Attorney for a Party (CCP § 1987(b) & (c))
Maria’s attorney also needs David, the at-fault driver (a party to the lawsuit), to appear for his deposition and bring specific documents. Instead of serving a formal subpoena directly on David, Maria’s attorney serves a “Notice to Appear” and “Notice to Produce Documents” on David’s attorney via mail.

• Attendance (b): The notice requests David’s presence at a deposition 15 days later, which is more than the minimum 10 days required by the statute. David’s attorney receives the notice, and David is now legally compelled to attend the deposition, just as if he had been personally served with a subpoena.
• Document Production (c): Included in the same notice, served 15 days prior (which is less than the 20 days required for document production, but the attorneys might have agreed to a shorter period, or the court could order it), is a request for David to bring: “All cell phone records for the date of the accident (January 15, 2023), including text messages sent and received between 1:00 PM and 3:00 PM,” and “Any dashcam footage from his vehicle on the date of the accident.” The notice states that these materials are believed to be in David’s possession or control.

David’s attorney reviews the request. David does not have dashcam footage, and his text messages contain some privileged communications. Within five days, David’s attorney serves written objections to the text message request, citing attorney-client privilege for some messages and privacy concerns for others, while stating David has no dashcam footage.
Maria’s attorney then files a “motion to compel” the production of the text messages, arguing good cause and materiality, specifically seeking non-privileged texts that could show David was distracted at the time of the crash. The court will then decide if David must produce the requested items.

This example demonstrates how CCP § 1987 allows for both traditional subpoena service and a more streamlined “notice” procedure, particularly for parties, to ensure evidence is produced in a civil action.

Related Statutes

• Code of Civil Procedure § 1985 – Subpoena for Attendance of Witness; Subpoena Duces Tecum: This statute defines a subpoena, specifies its requirements (such as the name of the court, title of the action, etc.), and details the affidavit necessary for a subpoena duces tecum (a subpoena commanding the production of documents or other evidence). CCP § 1987(c) offers an alternative to the subpoena duces tecum process for parties.
• Code of Civil Procedure § 1987.5 – Subpoena Duces Tecum for Consumer or Employee Records: This section specifically governs the process for serving a subpoena duces tecum for a consumer’s personal records or an employee’s employment records. It requires additional notice to the consumer or employee, affording them an opportunity to object.
• Code of Civil Procedure § 1988 – Service of Subpoena on Concealed Witness: Deals with situations where a witness conceals themselves to avoid service.
• Code of Civil Procedure § 1989 – Attendance of Witness Outside County of Residence: Addresses limitations on compelling a witness to attend if they reside outside a certain distance from the place of trial.
• Code of Civil Procedure § 2020.010 et seq. – Means of Obtaining Discovery (Subpoenas): This chapter details the use of subpoenas for discovery purposes, including depositions, and ties into the procedural requirements of CCP § 1987 for service.
• Government Code §§ 68097.1 to 68097.8 – Fees for Public Employees as Witnesses: These sections specify the fees and procedures for compelling the attendance of state or local agency employees as witnesses, which are explicitly referenced as an exception in CCP § 1987(a).
• Welfare and Institutions Code §§ 300, 601, 602 – Minors Subject to Jurisdiction of Juvenile Court: These sections describe the categories of minors who fall under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court (e.g., dependency, truancy, delinquency), and are referenced in CCP § 1987(a) for special service requirements on minors involved with child welfare or probation departments.

Case Law Interpreting Code of Civil Procedure § 1987

Several California appellate court decisions have interpreted various aspects of Code of Civil Procedure § 1987.

• People v. Superior Court (1967) 248 Cal.App.2d 276: This case discusses the effect of the notice specified in subdivision (b) and clarifies that it has “the same effect as a subpoena” for attendance, meaning it carries the same legal weight and potential for sanctions. [Link to Google Scholar page for People v. Superior Court (1967) 248 Cal.App.2d 276](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12521199577508491873)

• Boquet v. Boquet (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 324: This case involved the interpretation of subdivision (c) concerning the production of documents. The court clarified that the “good cause” showing required to compel production after an objection needs to establish the relevance and materiality of the requested items. It emphasized that subdivision (c) provides a distinct mechanism for obtaining documents from parties without a formal subpoena duces tecum, streamlining discovery. [Link to Google Scholar page for Boquet v. Boquet (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 324](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10375822393279183002)

• Lee v. Obedian (2007) 162 Cal.App.4th 993: This case further explored the “good cause” requirement under subdivision (c) for nonproduction. It confirmed that the burden shifts to the objecting party to establish good cause for nonproduction, such as undue burden, privilege, or irrelevance, once the requesting party has shown materiality. [Link to Google Scholar page for Lee v. Obedian (2007) 162 Cal.App.4th 993](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9494303666299103986)

These cases highlight the procedural importance of CCP § 1987 in ensuring proper notice, compelling attendance, and facilitating the production of evidence from both parties and non-parties in civil litigation.

Why Code of Civil Procedure § 1987 Matters in Personal Injury Litigation

Code of Civil Procedure § 1987 is a cornerstone statute in California personal injury litigation, profoundly impacting how attorneys gather evidence, present their case, and ultimately achieve justice for their clients. Its relevance spans several critical areas:

• Gathering Crucial Testimony: Personal injury cases heavily rely on witness testimony. CCP § 1987 provides the legal framework to compel:

* Percipient Witnesses: Individuals who saw the accident (bystanders, other drivers) are typically non-parties, requiring personal subpoena service under § 1987(a). Their testimony can be vital for establishing fault.
* Expert Witnesses: Doctors, accident reconstructionists, or economists who are not parties to the lawsuit must be properly subpoenaed under § 1987(a) to testify about their findings and opinions regarding causation and damages.
* Parties to the Lawsuit: Both the plaintiff and defendant are crucial witnesses. Their attendance at depositions and trial is secured via the streamlined “notice to attorney” method outlined in § 1987(b), which is far more efficient than individual subpoena service.

• Obtaining Essential Documents and Electronic Evidence: Proving damages and liability often hinges on documentary evidence. CCP § 1987 facilitates the production of:

* Medical Records: While often obtained via medical authorizations, in some cases, a subpoena duces tecum (or a notice with request for production for parties) might be necessary, especially for non-party medical providers.
* Employment Records: To establish lost wages or earning capacity, employment records are critical.
* Accident Reports & Police Records: These official documents provide crucial details about the incident.
* Electronically Stored Information (ESI): Modern personal injury cases often involve text messages, emails, social media posts, or dashcam/surveillance footage. Section 1987(c) specifically allows for the request of ESI from parties, which can be pivotal in demonstrating negligence or assessing damages.

• Ensuring Due Process and Fairness: The statute’s requirements for reasonable notice, payment of witness fees, and the right to object to document production ensure a fair process. For clients, this means their testimony won’t be compelled without proper notice, and they won’t incur out-of-pocket expenses for their court-ordered participation. For minors involved in accidents, the specific service requirements protect their interests by ensuring appropriate adult fiduciaries are informed.

• Strategic Advantage for Attorneys: The “notice to attorney” provision in subdivisions (b) and (c) offers a significant strategic advantage by simplifying the process of compelling parties and their agents. This saves time and resources compared to traditional personal service, allowing attorneys to focus on the substance of the case. The ability to compel documents and ESI from parties directly via notice is also a powerful discovery tool. Failure to comply with a notice carries the same weight as a subpoena, empowering the court to impose sanctions against non-compliant parties, thus ensuring cooperation.

In essence, CCP § 1987 empowers personal injury attorneys to effectively gather the necessary evidence and testimony from all relevant sources, whether they are parties directly involved in the lawsuit or independent third parties, thereby strengthening their client’s case and navigating the complex legal landscape more efficiently.