Lara Coury v. Steven Coury (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM AND FOR COUNSEL FEES PENDENTE LITE (# 206) AND OBJECTION TO SUBPOENA AND NOTICE OF DEPOSITION (# 207)

On September 13, 2010, the deponents, Elie Coury and Doris Coury, filed a “motion to quash subpoena duces tecum and for counsel fees pendente lite” and an “objection to subpoena and notice of deposition.”   An annexed memorandum of law was filed along with the motions.   The motions were argued before the court on October 4, 2010.

Counsel for the deponents incorrectly relies upon Practice Book § 13-28.   “At common law, a subpoena duces tecum was not an order compelling a witness to turn documents over to the subpoenaing party.   The purpose was to require the witness to produce those documents before a court which would make a determination as to whether they should be turned over, inspected, and/or admitted into evidence.”   McCarty v. McCarty, Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield, Docket No. FA 01 0387527 (January 22, 2003, Hiller, J.) [34 Conn. L. Rptr. 67].

General Statutes § 52-148(e) and Practice Book §§ 13-26 through 13-32 permit a party to obtain tangible items from non-parties through the deposition process.   A subpoena may be issued commanding the deponent to produce and to permit inspection and copying of designated books, papers or tangible items related to matters within the scope of the permitted examination.  General Statutes § 52-148e(b);  Practice Book § 13-28(c).

Although items produced for inspection during the examination may be inspected and copied by any party, Practice Book § 13-30(f), the person to be deposed may file objections to the inspection or copying, and if such objection is made the documents may not be inspected or copied except pursuant to a court order.  Practice Book § 13-28(d).

Accordingly, the motion to quash the subpoena duces tecum and the objection to subpoena and notice for deposition are denied.   Additionally, the request for counsel fees for the prosecution of these motions is denied.

Marano, J.

Marano, Richard M., J.