Trial Subpoena Duces Tecum

Ex parte Esteban, [Ms. 2200685, 2200686, Aug. 20, 2021] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. Civ. App. 2021). The court (Edwards, J.; Thompson, P.J., and Moore, Hanson, and Fridy, JJ., concur) denies in part and grants in part the father’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to quash a subpoena duces tecum directed to the Shelby County Department of Human Resources (“DHR”).

The court rejects the father’s argument that the subpoena should be quashed “because the mother sought the production of documents and other materials by use of a subpoena duces tecum, she was required under Rule 45(a)(3)(A) to first serve upon him notice of her intent to file the subpoena.” Ms. *8. The court explains, “under the plain language of the rule, because the subpoena duces tecum did not request only the production of documents or other materials and instead compelled both the production of documents or other materials and the attendance of the custodian of records for DHR at the trial, she was not required to file a notice of intent to serve the subpoena.” Ms. *9. The court issued the writ limiting the records to be produced so as to prevent DHR from producing “records deemed confidential by §§ 38-2-6, 38-7-13, and 38-9-6 [Ala. Code 1975]….” Ms. *25.

Related Documents