Why Plaintiff's lawyer chose Subpoena instead of deposition?

Question

I am suing a company and the CEO was called to set up a date for his deposition. We were informed that his lawyer requested we subpoena him...why? This is pretrial discovery, why would he reject the deposition and request to be subpoenaed instead?

Answer 1

You typically have to subpoena a person to cause them to voluntarily appear for their deposition, unless the deponent is the opposing party.  Check your local rules of civil procedure.

Answer 2

I'm not a lawyer, but, from some experience, here goes...

The court has the authority to compel this CEO to be deposed. If that motion has been granted, then he must do so or face contempt of court. I would think this is what your attorney will pursue.

A subpoena orders a person to appear in court (or to produce records). It really has no relations to a deposition, which takes place outside of court. It is a non-sequiter to say "I refuse the deposition notice; subpoena me instead."

Answer 3

Because he can move to quash a subpoena.  I think you may have misunderstood,  He is not rejecting the deposition.  He is saying you should send him a subpoena requiring him to attend the deposition instead of having him agree on a date for the deposition.  So, set it up and send the subpoena and if he shows, do the deposition.

Answer 4

You're getting all sorts of wrong information.

A party can compel a deposition by one of two procedures, Notice or Subpoena. A party to a lawsuit is required to appear at a deposition by being served a Notice to Appear at Deposition. Officers of a corporate defendant are also subject to a Notice to Appear at Deposition, but exactly who among officers, high level employees, or others would be subject to a Notice would vary by state.

Anyone can be served a Subpoena to appear at a deposition (the same way anyone can be served a Subpoena to appear at a trial), regardless as to whether or not they are a party to the lawsuit. If they are to be required to bring documents along with them to the deposition, they they are served a Subpoena Duces Tecum.

If someone duly compelled to appear at a deposition, whether by Subpoena or Notice, fails to appear, the party seeking their deposition can thereafter get a court order for their appearance, and if they fail to appear again, serious sanctions can be ordered, including if a defendant fails to appear, having their Answer to the Complaint stricken and a default judgment  entered.

Normally, an officer, such as the CEO in your case, would want to avoid having a Subpoena served on him, but he may have some information harmful to the company to say at his deposition, and wants to make sure that it appears to others - stockholders, other officers, etc. - that he is not testifying willingly, but is being compelled to do so.

Edit to Add:  The CEO would have two possible grounds that I could think of: 1) That he knows nothing about the case. Your attorney, if he does have a need to depose the CEO, should be able to make a prima facie showing of what type of information is within the CEO's knowledge that is relevant to material issues of the case; 2) That the Subpoena was not properly served. You should not rely on a private process server to serve the Subpoena. Have the Sheriff or if your local court has a Marshall's office, have them serve the Subpoena, and the Judge will be unlikely to quash service of the Subpoena.

Edit to Add:  His political position does not give him grounds to refuse to testify in a civil case that has nothing to do with his current position. He may try to say he cannot leave Washington because he is too busy with vital governmental matters, but your attorney could counter that by taking his deposition in Washington, or doing it by video with the deponent in Washington and the attorney in his own office (I did that in the past).

It basically comes down to this: If he is properly served and has information relevant to your case, you will be able to have him deposed. If your attorney only wants his deposition for strategic reasons, to harass, or as a fishing expedition, it likely will not happen.

Answer 5

This is a stall tactic, You can duck a subpoena for months and its going to cost you money