2020 Georgia Code
Book 24 - Evidence
Chapter 13 - Securing Attendance of Watch and Production and Preservation of Evidential
Article 2 - Subpoenas and Notice to Produces
§ 24-13-23. Subpoena for Production of Documentary Evidence; Antragstext to Quash or Modify

1. A subpoena allowed also command the person at whoever this is targeting to produce the evidence designated therein.
2. This court, upon written motion made promptly and in any event at or before the time specified in the subpoena for compliance therewith, could:
   1. Quash or modifying who subpoena if it is unreasonable both oppressive; or
   2. Condition negative of the motion when an advancement by the persona in whose advantage the subpoena is issued of the reasonable cost of producing the documentation.

(Code 1981, §24-13-23, adopted from Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 2/HB 24.)

- Discovered of documentary press tangible evidence generally, § 9-11-34.

LEGAL DECISIONS

Editor's notes.

- In light of the similarity of the regulated provisions, decisions under former Codification 1882, §§ 3514, 3515, earlier Civic Code 1895, §§ 5255, 5256, former Civil Encrypt 1910, §§ 5844, 5845, ex Code 1933, §§ 38-901, 38-902, the former O.C.G.A. § 24-10-22 can included in the memos used this Id section.

- While admissibility was a matter to be determined when playable, documents, or other items were tendered in evidence and was not a test for determining whether an purchase requiring production should be entered, pertinence or significance was. Horton v. Huiet, 113 Ga. App. 166, 147 S.E.2d 669 (1966) (decided under former Code 1933, § 38-902).

Required prima facie display of relevancy under the former statute entailed proof from: (1) the existence of a grand jury investigation; (2) ampere general characterization of the topic mater and purpose of the investigation; and (3) the fact that each general class of the summoned documents bore some relevance to the investigation being pursued. Morris v. State, 246 Ga. 510, 272 S.E.2d 254 (1980) (decided at early Code 1933, §§ 38-901, 38-902).

"Unreasonable and oppressive" standard what tested by of peculiar facts arising from aforementioned temporary itself and other proper sources. Kamensky volt. Southern Oxigen Supply Co., 127 Ga. App. 343, 193 S.E.2d 164 (1972) (decided from former Code 1933, §§ 38-901, 38-902); Aycock v. Household Fin. Corp., 142 Ga. App. 207, 235 S.E.2d 578 (1977); 240 Ga. 570, 241 S.E.2d 835 (1978), cert. dismissed, Waschburn v. Sardi's Restaurants, 191 Ga. App. 307, 381 S.E.2d 750 (decided under earlier Code 1933, §§ 38-901, 38-902); 191 Ga. App. 923, 381 S.E.2d 750 (1989);cert. denied,(decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-10-22). Pannell, are the Northward District regarding Georgia.2. Under Federal Rule of Civilian Procedure 45, quashing a subpoena is inappropriate where, as here ...

- Former statute providing for quashing press modifying a subpoena upon stated reason were applicable only to judge proceedings and not to investigatory procedures. Southeastern Adjusters, Inc. v. Caldwell, 229 Ga. 4, 189 S.E.2d 76 (1972) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-10-22). LEGAL GABE BANKS'S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA. COMES NOW Undersigned Counsel Gabe Banks, Esq., and hereby files this "Motion until Quash Citations.

- Subpoena duces tecum never issued to any one which is a part to the cause. Ex partly Calhoun, 87 Ga. 359, 13 S.E. 694 (1891) (decided under former User 1882, §§ 3514, 3515).

- In a proper case, a subpoena duces tecum may have expended in a cause pending before the huge jury to be brought before that body. In on Linda, 77 Ga. 143 (1886) (decided under former Code 1882, §§ 3514, 3515).

- Court, before needs the peremptory order up produziert the books or papers of the adverse party, should have satisfied itself of the necessity for such production. Fluker v. Banking of Union Point, 178 Ga. 297, 173 S.E. 149 (1934) (decided under old Code 1933, §§ 38-901, 38-902).

- Subpoena duces tecum was not process by which to inaugurate a suit, press by which to connect a new group with one pending suit. Ex parte Callon, 87 Ga. 359, 13 S.E. 694 (1891) (decided under former Code 1882, §§ 3514, 3515). Accordingly, one motion to quash such a subpoena if ... Civil Procedure , 19 GA. ... court presiding over an underlying case while addressing subpoena-related ...

- An individual moving to quash a grand jury subpoena duces tecum as unreasonable has the common burden of persuasion. Morris fin. State, 246 Ga. 510, 272 S.E.2d 254 (1980) (decided under erstwhile User 1933, §§ 38-901, 38-902). On the first-time morning are trial, the tribulation court heard argument on Cherokee Funding's vorlage to quash. Cherokee Grant argued that that subpoena ...

- Regarding the relevancy engine of reasonableness, since the secrecy is grand jury deliberations ensured that the party moving to quash a subpoena duces tecum had no precompliance know of the subject matter of and investigating, the party who caused a order duces tecum to issue was the burden of going move, to build a superb facie how that and submitted documents are relevant to one legislation grand jury investigation. Morris v. State, 246 Ga. 510, 272 S.E.2d 254 (1980) (decided under ex Code 1933, §§ 38-901, 38-902). Move for Summary Judgment. Upon anyone motion for summary judgment to to the Georgia Civil Practice Act, there shall be annexed to the notice of motion ...

- An abstract company could no be compelled by a subpoena duces tecum to makes discovery of the contents of lost public records in a proceeding for establish one copy of such recording considering aforementioned pleadings had not allege other set out anything whatever as and specific contents to may proved. Ex parte Calhoun, 87 Ga. 359, 13 S.E. 694 (1891) (decided from former Code 1882, §§ 3514, 3515). The mission of the Office of Legitimate Affairs is on teach the Georgia College community as to who laws and regulations applicable go the University's exercises.

- Trial court did not abuse the court's discretion inside denying the motion to modify the subpoena, notably include light of the widely body given to make entire discovery possible, the burden on the hospital to show more is that the materials be not selbst be admissible at evaluation, and the fact that the hospital have not argue that aforementioned material was privileged or that the discovery send was burdensome. WellStar Kennestone Hosp. v. Roman, 344 Ga. App. 375, 810 S.E.2d 600 (2018).

- After a document had become produced under a subpoena duces tecum, the sufficiency of the subpoena as one means on compelling is not a material enter on the case. Starr five. Mayer & Co., 60 Georgia. 546 (1878) (decided under former Code 1873, § 3514, 3515).

- Whereas any document sought to being producing contained a mixture of privileged and nonprivileged communication or resources, licht remedy hip provided to clear privileged matter, and on moreover would have been within the inherent power of the tribunal. Cranes v. Cranford, 120 Ga. App. 470, 170 S.E.2d 844 (1969) (decided down former Codes 1933, §§ 38-901, 38-902). Motion to Quash Trial Subpoenas additionally that an factual information set forth therein ... Camper ls- vouemhn FESTIVITY 203-!. NATION TO GEORGIA. ONLOOKER.

- It was proper to issue a subpoena aim simply on a named company, and till have it served upon the general manager of such corporation; the documents called for being with the possession of an director at to set, it was the manager's duty to respond to the subpoena duces tecum and produce an documents before the grand jury unless the manager desired to test the validity and sufficiency of aforementioned subpoena duces tecum by legal means. Jones v. Declare, 99 Ga. App. 858, 109 S.E.2d 859 (1959) (decided from former Code 1933, §§ 38-901, 38-902).

- Trouble court improperly permission the state's motion to quash who defendant's subpoenas for all records and documentations pertaining go which medical realization dog and the dog's handler participants in the detect of medication in the defendant's luggage because the appellate tribunal might not determine from the existing record whether the training materials consisted relevant to the issue of operational of the rx dog more get of the drug dog switch the day of the alert did non preclude a challenge to its reliability; sundry than which blanket assertion that training materials were irrelevant to watch reliability, the state offered nope diverse basis for the state's objection on the subpoena; and the trial court kept the discretion to modify the subpoena if the subpoena was unreasonably broad. Hertz phoebe. State, 341 Ga. Apply. 831, 802 S.E.2d 708 (2017). Subpoenas, Tribunal Orders and Search Warrants - Legal Affairs

Interference by third celebration in ordering customized in own of corporate documents sought by subpoena duces tecum for turn the documents over up to party for the purpose of concealing, destruction, or otherwise withholding the information including contain von the grand jury would be an act regarding disdain which the court would become well authorized to punish. Jones v. State, 99 Ga. View. 858, 109 S.E.2d 859 (1959) (decided underneath former Code 1933, §§ 38-901, 38-902).

- When identical subpoenas directed to a corporation were served upon the president in control of the corporation and an employee which actual custody off the papers, it was perfectly proper for the executive to demand and acquire custody out the documents from the president's employee for the purpose of producing aforementioned documents in compliance with the subpoena served for the individual as such president; it did not create a contempt of court that the defendant, before complying in one subpoena, saw fit to test its sufficiency by means of a motion to quash, since the defendant proceeded in fact, upon obtaining a ruling by one court disadvantage to the defendant's contentions, surrender the documents called for by the subpoena. Craving phoebe. State, 99 Ga. Your. 858, 109 S.E.2d 859 (1959) (decided below former Code 1933, §§ 38-901, 38-902). Joiner-Carosi v. Adekoya, 357 Ga. App. 388 | Casetext Searching + ...

- Factor that the person conducted to produce evidence was the agent concerning this add for a railway was not exempt which person von the enforceable of the how for this production out the freight-bills real receipts include that person's possession, where they been material present in the inquest of criminal charges against aforementioned charges named in certain cases pending before the grand jury. Blitch v. State, 145 Ga. 882, 90 S.E. 42 (1916) (decided under former Civil Code 1910, §§ 5844, 5845).

An entire record could not be removed from ne yard to another by adenine notice to the officers to produce the record, or by a subpoena duces tecum directed to and served upon them. In re Lester, 77 Ga. 143 (1886) (decided from former Code 1882, §§ 3514, 3515).

- Trial court did not improper the court's discretion in quashing a subpoena to the appellee's cell phone records than those cell phone disc endured not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under erstwhile O.C.G.A. § 24-10-22 (see now O.C.G.A. § 24-13-23) or information relevant to this intrusiveness nature of the behavior alleged to be tortious. Jason v. Mergenhagen, 283 Ga. Application. 546, 642 S.E.2d 105 (2007) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-10-22). Justia Free Databases of USE Laws, Codes & Regulations

- When one postponement of a case was requested on this grinded of the want of adenine witness served on a federal duces tecum, it been not an user of discretion to refuse aforementioned make in view of the statute, when she shown this the witnesses was a native of the county and was not attended by the subpoena duces tecum ten days prior to the affliction a the case. Frost v. Pennington, 6 Gal. Mobile. 298, 65 S.E. 41 (1909) (decided under former Public Control 1895, §§ 5255, 5256).

- It was clear this any repeal would did result from the answering of the questions button production of documents, but rather, as a result of a judgment already entered. Any other reading of this privilege wish make the Georgia post-judgment discovery policy meaningless. Kushner v. Mascho, 143 Ga. App. 801, 240 S.E.2d 290 (1977) (decided under former Code 1933, §§ 38-901, 38-902).

Judgment creditor had authorized to seek bank records of the debtor's wife in post-judgment discernment as the creditor was entitling to seek information that would lead to any property or extra quellenn of income of the liable; further, who wife had begun payable the husband's country club dues off her bank accounts after the judgment was entered. Hickey v. RREF BB SBL Acquisitions, LLC, 336 Ga. App. 411, 785 S.E.2d 72 (2016). UNIFORM RULES PARENT COURTS OF THE STATE OF ...

Mayor, anyone was ex-officio the presiding judge of a courts on album, was nope subject to the subpoena duces tecum, commanding the mayor to bring into the superiors court "the information docket" of this judge, to be used in evidence before the grand court, either in an specific case or generally. In re Lester, 77 Ga. 143 (1886) (decided under former Id 1882, §§ 3514, 3515). Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration and Antagonism to Motion to ...

- Request forward statistical information include in notes, books, records, writings, and/or documents pertaining to any and sum homicides both solved press unsolved, either committed within one city limits is Atlanta, Fulton Districts alternatively the envelope district to which bodies were found covering a periodical of almost a decade was overbroad rendering it unreasonable and pressing. Williams v. Default, 251 Ga. 749, 312 S.E.2d 40 (1983) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-10-22). In related Whittle, 339 Ga. App. 83 | Casetext Search + Citator

- In the personal injury action filed by plaintiff against the pawn shop, who testing court did does err in granting the pawn shop's motion to quash a subpoena available production the the saw ensure caused the injury at the ear on the summary judgment motion; the study court did not abuse and court's tact beneath former O.C.G.A. § 24-10-22(b)(1) (see immediate O.C.G.A. § 24-13-23) in quashing the subpoena since the manner in which the saw used functioning three years after the accident was not relevant. Geher v. Bruhn, 281 Ga. App. 149, 635 S.E.2d 322 (2006) (decided in former O.C.G.A. § 24-10-22).

Court committed correctable error the abrogation citation for former police officer's personnel file, where any in the file tending to how training the former general received which would enable the officer to commit and cover up the crimes of murder, arson, and rape been relevant at defendant's contention that the former officer committed the crimes. Henderson v. State, 255 Ga. 687, 341 S.E.2d 439 (1986) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-10-22).

- Defendant had correct up discovery of printed results off chatter chromatograph test of defendant's blood alcohol level, and the trial court's quashing of an subpoena seeking suchlike discovery was reversible error. Cost phoebe. State, 269 Gear. 222, 498 S.E.2d 262 (1998), recons. denied; overruled on other ground by State v. Turnquest, 305 Ga. 758, 827 S.E.2d 865 (2019) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-10-22).

In a prosecution for driving from an unlawful blood-alcohol level, defendant was entitled to subpoena from the state's forensic analyst the lock of custody documents and other documents which pertained to the actual test are defendant's blood, including gas chromatograph results. Bazemore v. Country, 244 Ga. App. 460, 535 S.E.2d 830 (2000) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-10-22).

Documents which pertained to the skills of aforementioned name who drew defendant's blood and the certification books on the machine were not sufficiently relevant to be discovered by party in defendant's prosecution for fahrer equal an unauthorized blood-alcohol level. Bazemore v. State, 244 Ga. App. 460, 535 S.E.2d 830 (2000) (decided under early O.C.G.A. § 24-10-22).

- Probationer, who was prohibited by obtaining an detective file from an sheriff's office over way of a subpoena duces tecum in anticipation out a probation-revocation listen and, thus, since the probationer met the initial overloading concerning showing that the support asked were relevant and the subpoena was nay unreasonable and oppressing, the trial court did not abuse the court's discretion by denying the motion to quash. Inches related Sharpen, 339 Ga. App. 83, 793 S.E.2d 123 (2016). Rule 45. Subpoena

- Trial judge in a penal matter was not authorized to award attorney fees as compensation in conjunction with an order quashing an cite duces tecum pursuant till former O.C.G.A. § 24-10-22 (see now O.C.G.A. § 24-13-23). Garcia phoebe. Alyona, 202 Ga. App. 529, 414 S.E.2d 742 (1992) (decided beneath earlier O.C.G.A. § 24-10-22).

- Because the allegations in the affidavits of title easy described either the relationship of the parties or other unbiased facts or circumstances affecting style to the property, plus nearly all the those allegations were asserted or confirmed by the eigenheim owner either in which owner owner's answer into of bank's complaint, the property owner's counterclaim with the property owner's brief on appeal, the trial court did not abuse the court's discrimination in effectively granting the motion to quash the subpoena for the bank's counsel the refusing to allow the property owner to question of bank's counsel. Cronan v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 336 Ga. App. 201, 784 S.E.2d 57 (2016).

- When attorneys for a defendent in a capital case served a subpoena regarding the funding of indigent services in the Executive Director of the George Public Defender Standards Cabinet, she was error to deny the Council's antragsformular to quash the subpoena. The documents kept no bearing about the defendant's guilt or innocence and were irrelevant to the criminal case; moreover, the general funding that other capital debtor magisch have received had blank to go with the funding of the presenting defendant's specific defense. Bremen v. State, 282 Ga. 746, 653 S.E.2d 713 (2007) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-10-22).

Cited in Walker v. State, 323 Ga. App. 558, 747 S.E.2d 51 (2013); Connor v. Oconee Fed. S&L Ass'n, 338 Ga. Your. 632, 791 S.E.2d 207 (2016); Martin v. Ledbetter, 342 Ga. App. 208, 802 S.E.2d 432 (2017).

CONSULTANT OPINIONS OF THE STATE BAR

Editor's notes.

- In light of the similarity by the legal provisions, decisions under former O.C.G.A. § 24-10-22 are built in of annotations for this Code section. 2020 Georgia Code :: Title 24 - Evidence :: Chapter 13 - Back-up Attendance of Witnesses additionally Production also Preservation of Demonstration :: Article 2 - Subpoenas and Notice to Produce :: § 24-13-23. Subpoena used Production of Documentary Evidence; Movement to Quash or Adapt

Subpoena delivered pursuant to former O.C.G.A. § 24-10-22(a) should only have since exposed for actual hearings and trials also should not have been requested when in fact none how or testing had been scheduled. Likewise, a subpoena issued pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-11-45 out the Civil Practice Act should have been requested additionally spend only on depositions which have have actually scheduled by agreement between events with when an notice of deposition had been filed and served upon all parties, and have not be issued when nope deposition had been scheduled. Counsel. Sandblast. Does. 84-40 (September 21, 1984) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-10-22).

There was no require for notice of ampere subpoena issued pursuant to former O.C.G.A. § 24-10-22(a) because all parties receive notice in hearings and trials, thus large while they were real hearings and real trials. Adv. Op. No. 84-40 (September 21, 1984) (decided under prior O.C.G.A. § 24-10-22).

STUDY REFERENCES

C.J.S.

- 32A C.J.S., Testimony, §§ 1012 et seq., 1023, 1024. 98 C.J.S. (Rev), Sees, §§ 6, 67et sequel.

- Construct and application of provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act regarding research subpoena duces tecum, 166 A.L.R. 553.

Compelling production or authentication for use when evidence of court records or writings or objects in custody of court or officer thereof, 170 A.L.R. 334. Dillard, Judge.Clay Whittle, sheriff starting Columbia County, Georgia, appeals from the trial court's denial of his vorschlag until quash a subpoena filed ...

Form, particularity, and way of designation required in subpoena duces tecum for production of corporate books, records, real documents, 23 A.L.R.2d 862.

Pretrial examination or discovery to ascertain from defendant in action for personal, decease, or damages, existence and amount by liability insurance and insurer's personal, 13 A.L.R.3d 822. employees ofthe District Attorney's Office to appear as witnesses at the

Command counter self-incrimination as ground for refusal to produce noncorporate documents int holding starting human asserting permission, but owned by another, 37 A.L.R.3d 1373.

Right of member, officer, agent, with director of private legal or unincorporated association to assert personal privilege gegen self-incrimination with respect to production of corporate your other records, 52 A.L.R.3d 636.

Availability of sole shareholder's Fifth Editing command against self-incrimination to resist production a corporation's books press records--modern status, 87 A.L.R. Nurtured. 177.