Also known as: deposition subpoenas duces tecum · subpoena duces tecum · depo subpoena duces tecum
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A discovery device compelling a witness to produce specified documents or tangible items at an oral deposition. The designated materials must be identified in the deposition notice or an attachment to satisfy notice requirements to all parties.
Devon Drake noticed the deposition of a Dawson Steel project manager and served a subpoena requiring production of maintenance logs and performance spreadsheets. The notice attached the subpoena and expressly referenced its three document categories. Dawson Steel objected that the categories were omitted from the body of the notice itself. The court denied the motion to quash because the attachment satisfied the listing requirement.
Federal prosecutors served a subpoena duces tecum on the White House requiring production of tape recordings for use at a criminal trial. The subpoena directed pretrial delivery so counsel could inspect the materials. The President moved to quash on privilege grounds. The court enforced the subpoena after balancing the need for evidence against the asserted privilege.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Shareholders noticed the deposition of a corporation's former attorney and served a subpoena duces tecum for documents relating to stock issuance advice. The attorney refused to answer questions about privileged communications. The court addressed whether the corporation could assert privilege against its own shareholders in the derivative action.
Federal agents executed a warrant and seized business records from a defendant's office. The defendant moved to suppress the documents on Fourth Amendment grounds. The court considered whether the seizure of papers pursuant to a subpoena-like process violated constitutional protections against unreasonable searches.
Prosecutors issued a subpoena duces tecum to a student newspaper seeking photographs and notes from a campus protest. The newspaper moved to quash, arguing the materials were protected by the First Amendment. The court balanced the government's need for evidence against the press's interest in confidentiality of sources.
A grand jury subpoena duces tecum sought a senator's files containing constituent correspondence and staff memoranda. The senator claimed legislative immunity protected the materials from production. The court examined the scope of immunity for documents generated in the course of official legislative duties.
Yes. The governing rule requires that the materials designated for production be listed in the notice or in an attachment so every party receives clear advance notice and can object or seek protection before the deposition occurs.
Supporting sources
The notice is deficient. Courts have denied motions to compel and granted protective orders or motions to quash when the categories appear only in the subpoena and not in the notice or an attachment.
Supporting sources
Yes. The rules permit a subpoena duces tecum for any deponent, and the notice to a party deponent may be accompanied by a Rule 34 request, but the document categories must still be listed in the notice or attachment.
Supporting sources
Yes, provided the attachment supplies the specific categories with reasonable particularity. A bare reference to the subpoena without an actual list or attachment does not suffice.
Supporting sources
…of the President of the United States in United States v. Mitchell et al. (D.C. Crim. No. 74-110), to quash a third-party subpoena duces tecum issued pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c). The subpoena directed the President to produce certain tape recordings and documents relating to his conversations with aides and advisers. The…