De Anda v. California

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that defendant was not entitled to make an ex parte application for a subpoena duces tecum
• reasoning that Rule 17 does not provide for ex parte application where a defendant desires pretrial production of documents, and that the procedure is probably not available for requests seeking the production of materials at trial
• “[O]ne cannot easily imagine that such a motion [to quash or modify] should be heard and decided in secret, without the knowledge of all parties.”
• scheme of Rule 17 supports congressional intent that compliance with subpoena duces tecum requires notice to opposing counsel

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).