UIDDA: Getting Evidence Over the State Line

A plaintiff attorney handling wrongful death and injury cases in California state court learns case-critical evidence exists, but over the California state line:

• Discovery shows the tractor-trailer that crashed into your client’s car, paralyzed your client and killed his wife had a dashcam that recorded real time views of the highway as seen from the driver’s seat. Video playback shows events immediately before and during the crash, effectively making the dashcam an eye witness to the crash with perfect recollection and no human bias. The dashcam also recorded the semi’s speed and braking. The defense objects to producing the dashcam video and download of speed/braking data or could produce a truncated version. A third-party vendor of the dashcam stored the crash data as part of its real-time monitoring contract with the trucking company. But the vendor is located in Ohio, far beyond the reach of a California state court records subpoena.

• Ninety days before trial, you learn an eyewitness to a fatal crash moved to Wyoming. The eyewitness was never deposed and is outside the range of a California trial subpoena.

• The defense claims your plaintiff’s L5 S1 lumbar herniated disc was not actually suffered in a rear end collision, but was a pre-existing condition and degenerative in nature. A year before the crash, while living in New York, your plaintiff underwent an MRI that was negative for the same lumbar region. The MRI would debunk the defense. But the curmudgeon at the New York imaging facility will not provide the MRI without a subpoena. Fortunately, there is an easy fix. Using the Uniform Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act (“UIDDA”), a California attorney can obtain an Ohio subpoena for the dashcam, a New York subpoena for the MRI, and a Wyoming subpoena to depose the eyewitness so his video recorded testimony can be used at trial in California. As of August 31, 2025, when Texas finally left the Alamo and adopted the UIDDA, 47 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. Virgin Islands have adopted the UIDDA or a customized version of it. Only Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Missouri remain holdouts. See the chart of UIDDA Adoption by States and Statutes.

Had the same out-of-state subpoenas been needed in a federal case, a California attorney wouldn’t blink. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(b) has long authorized a subpoena to be issued and served “at any place in the United States.” Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 45(c) requires only that the deposition be taken or records produced “within the state” or “100 miles of where the person resides, is employed or regularly transacts business in person.” Yet not until 2007 did states take the first baby steps toward allowing state court litigants to have the same subpoena range as is available in federal court for the same case.

In 2007 the Uniform Law Commission created the UIDDA “to set forth a procedure that can be easily and efficiently followed, that has a minimum of judicial oversight and intervention, that is cost effective for the litigants and is fair to the deponents.” The UIDDA was patterned after federal Rule 45 which the Uniform Law Commission noted was “universally admired by civil litigators for its simplicity and efficiency.”

In furtherance of that goal, in 2007 the California Law Revision Commission prepared a memorandum urging California’s adoption of the UIDDA. Three years later, on January 1, 2010, the California Legislature enacted its own version of the UIDDA called “the Interstate and International Depositions and Discovery Act.” (C.C.P. § 2029.100 et seq.) Code of Civil Procedure section 2092.700 actually states it is the “California version of the Uniform Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act.” The stated purpose: “In applying and construing this uniform act, consideration shall be given to the need to promote uniformity of the law with respect to its subject matter among the states that enact it.” The California version is broader than the UIDDA. California addresses (1) procedural details not addressed in UIDDA, and (2) governs discovery for purposes of an action pending in a foreign nation (i.e., New Zealand), not just discovery for a case pending in another state in the United States.

UIDDA ADOPTION BY STATE AND STATUTE

UIDDA Subpoena Process

The 47 states that either adopted the UIDDA or a tweaked version under a statute or rule of civil procedure, follow a similar UIDDA procedure: A California subpoena for a pending California state court case is issued by a California attorney. (UIDDA § 3.) In the discovery state where the subpoena will be issued, the California attorney determines which county court has jurisdiction over the person or business.

In Texas, for example: If the deponent lives in Austin, Texas, the subpoena would be issued by the district or county court of Travis County, Texas under brand new Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 201.3. The Texas rule essentially mirrors the UIDDA as it requires a Texas court clerk

“Must promptly issue a subpoena for service on the person or entity to which the out-of-state subpoena is directed.” The Texas subpoena must also “incorporate the terms used in the out-of-state subpoena” and “contain or be accompanied by the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all counsel of record in the proceeding to which the subpoena relates and of any party who has appeared and is not represented by counsel.” Critically, the Texas Rule states: “A request for the issuance of a subpoena under this rule does not constitute an appearance in a Texas court” (emphasis added). This last point expressly protects an attorney requesting a foreign state’s subpoena from an accusation of practicing law without a license in another state. California’s interstate subpoena law similarly states: “A request for the issuance of a subpoena under this section does not constitute making an appearance in the courts of this state.” (C.C.P. § 2029.300(a).)

Depositions taken under the UIDDA must be conducted, and documents produced, under the laws of the discovery state, including any geographical limit.

Under Texas Rule 201.3, once the Texas subpoena is issued, it must be served under Texas Rules 176 and 205. The Texas deposition and document production are governed by Texas Rules 190 to 200 and 205. Like Texas, in every other state where a subpoena is issued under the UIDDA, it must be served under the discovery laws of that state. (UIDDA § 4.) The discovery state’s statute or rule adopting the UIDDA also states its service rule for the subpoena. For example, Alabama statute section 12-21-402 states: “A subpoena issued by a clerk of court under Section 12-21-402 must be served in compliance with Rule 45 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure.” Depositions taken under the UIDDA must be conducted, and documents produced, under the laws of the discovery state, including any geographical limit.

Fool-Proofing Issuance of Foreign Subpoena

To avoid rejection, make the UIDDA subpoena request easy for the court clerk in the discovery state to follow with a straightforward request letter. Attach a copy of the discovery state’s own statute adopting the UIDDA rule for the court clerk’s immediate reference. While a county court in a major city may routinely “domesticate” foreign subpoenas under the UIDDA, asking a village clerk in Kansas to issue a Kansas subpoena, based on a California subpoena, may cause the clerk’s eyes to roll back into their mid-brain. Best practice is to call the court clerk’s office that will issue the out-of-state subpoena and ask if there are any special forms or fees. If the court’s subpoena form is available online, complete the subpoena form yourself, mirroring the California subpoena’s details, so that the court clerk will only need to issue it, not type up an entire subpoena.

Some states like New York (CPLR 3119) and New Jersey (N.J. R. 4:11-4) authorize an even more streamlined approach, allowing a New York or New Jersey attorney to directly issue a New York or New Jersey subpoena when presented with a California subpoena, bypassing the court clerk altogether. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2029.350, a California attorney is authorized to directly issue a California deposition subpoena for a case pending outside California.

Fool-Proofing Service of Subpoena

Generally, personal service of a subpoena is required. Although some states like Ohio allow a subpoena to be served by certified mail or abode service, personal service should be used to avoid a claim of no service or improper service. Paying for personal service now will avoid far greater expense and delay later if a deponent does not appear for a deposition or produce documents because they were not properly served. And the expenses multiply if you discover the snafu only after you hire a court reporter, fly into Kansas for the deposition and only then discover you cannot have the subpoena enforced by the Kansas court because service was invalid.

Follow local service statutes and rules to the letter. If a service statute in Hawaii requires, say, a Hula dance mid-serve, or Kansas requires clicking ruby slipper heels together and saying, “there’s no place like home,” then that is exactly what the process servers in Hawaii and Kansas must do to comply. Best practice is to contact a reputable local process server, as a local server will know local service rules and the local area. The local server may also be experienced in having the local court “domesticate” a subpoena. If the UIDDA subpoena request package is emailed to the local server, they can take it to the local courthouse, pay any applicable fee, then serve the subpoena after issuance. Working directly with an established local process server will avoid the delay of sending hard copies back and forth to the court clerk in the discovery state, and only then sending out the subpoena for service. Dealing directly with the local server is also important so they can update you immediately and directly about any service problems that come up. Service should be as “bulletproof” as possible so the subpoena can be enforced if necessary. The National Association of Professional Process Servers (NAPPS) website lists licensed process servers nearest the service zip code, miles of distance from the zip code, and their years of experience: https://napps.org/FindServer.aspx.

Too often, dealing with a nationwide process serving company adds many layers of agency between the server in the field and you. By the time your subpoena service update is passed from the field in Kansas to the national referring agency to a customer service rep in yet another city, the update you receive may be garbled and/or certainly delayed. The update may be that your pizza was delivered because subpoena service was farmed out to a pizza delivery man with a side hustle.

Motions to Enforce Subpoena and Protective Orders

The scope of the UIDDA is not without limits. Kaitlin D. Wolff, Legislative Program Director for the Uniform Law Commission, confirmed that if court proceedings are involved in the discovery state, local counsel must be hired to file a motion to enforce the subpoena or oppose a protective order. Local counsel is also required to help take a deposition in the discovery state or to get California counsel admitted pro hac vice.

As most states liberally allow discovery of relevant evidence from third parties, many deponents simply show up for a deposition or produce business records. But if a Kansas business has a knee-jerk reaction to being served with a subpoena for a California case, it will send the subpoena to its legal department. Hyper-technical violations of the subpoena issuance and service rules are the softest target for quashing service. The legal department’s managing partner will give the subpoena to the new eager young associate with the commandment: “Thou shalt find everything they did wrong, so this subpoena is Dead On Arrival.” Seeing this as a golden opportunity to pole vault to partner, the eager young associate will hunker down and tease out every nuance of the state’s UIDDA rules to gin up a tome of technical violations. The subpoenaing attorney will then be presented with a long laundry list of violations: no proper service because service was 14 feet outside of the 100-mile service range, the witness fee was paid but the mileage was not, there was no list of involved counsel and parties attached, subpoena not printed on recycled paper, server failed to click together heels of ruby slippers, etc. The list of objections hits the subpoenaing attorney’s inbox with a thud; super massive with blaming and shaming, the list generates its own gravity. However, if the subpoena was issued as directed by the state’s statute, and personally served, for a deposition set within the limits of the state’s deposition rule, the eager young associate can only sigh and confirm there are zero technical violations. The Kansas deposition proceeds.

Follow local service statutes and rules to the letter.

The UIDDA is also not, well, “uniform,” among states. Just as California custom
ized the UIDDA, Texas couldn’t part with its past. While Texans and their documents may be subpoenaed under Texas Rule 201.3, a premises inspection still requires a court order. Virginia, Utah, Alabama and Georgia grafted reciprocity requirements onto the UIDDA. A subpoena request in those states must affirm the requestor’s state extends the same UIDDA deposition privileges. Utah Code 78B-17-103(3) states: “Parties resident in another state may use the provisions of this chapter for issuance, service, or enforcement of subpoenas only if the other state has enacted this uniform act or enacted provisions substantially similar to this uniform act.” California litigants do not have to limbo under any such reciprocity rules. California’s Code of Civil Procedure section 2029.100 not only provides reciprocity with all states, but also foreign countries like Iceland. The Judicial Council of California even issues ready-made forms for litigants outside of California for issuance of California subpoenas. A subpoena issuance request letter directed to the court clerks in Virginia, Utah, Alabama and Georgia should emphasize California’s forms are available to residents needing a California subpoena issued. To knock the ball out of the park, the request letter should attach Judicial Council of California Form SUBP-045: Deposition Subpoena for Personal Appearance and Production of Documents, Electronically Stored Information and Things in Action Pending Outside California.

The Bad Old Days

Before the UIDDA, getting a subpoena issued in another state depended on a patch work of rules peculiar to each state and “comity” (voluntary judicial enforcement in another jurisdiction). Comity became comedy if Judge Roy Bean in Texas, the only Law West of the Pecos, didn’t care to honor y’all’s subpoena from far-off Caly-for-NYE-Aye because he ain’t lost nothing there. The Bad Old Days for us only ebbed with California adopting the UIDDA just 15 years ago. Even in states where comity was displaced by a statute authorizing issuance of a foreign subpoena, the process was onerous. A California attorney was often required to file two motions: one in California to obtain a California Commission or letters rogatory, followed up by hiring local counsel to file a new case in the discovery state so that a second motion could be filed to order a local subpoena issued. The Commission form issued by the Judicial Council of California did not exist until 2008.

Urging adoption of the UIDDA, a 2007 California Law Revision Commission Staff Draft Recommendation regarding Deposition in Out-of-State Litigation noted: “each state had its own peculiar requirements” and “numerous varieties of interstate deposition statutes, their inconsistencies, and their ambiguities.” As a result, “[t]here does not seem to be any uniformity in how other states handle the points that require clarification.” The Recommendation also confirmed the confounding subpoena problems with California’s own repealed Code of Civil Procedure § 2029.010:

Section 2029.010 does not specify the details of the procedure for issuing a subpoena to take a deposition in California for purposes of an out-of state proceeding. It is not clear from the statutory text what type of paper the deposing party must submit to the court, whether that party must pay a fee and, if so, what fee applies, whether an attorney (rather than the court) may issue the subpoena, what format to use for the subpoena, and whether it is necessary to retain local counsel. Because the provision applies to a “natural person,” it is also questionable whether an organization located in California can be deposed for an out-of-state proceeding. The statute covers a deposition in which the witness is required to produce documents as well as testify, but is ambiguous as to whether it covers a deposition solely for the production of documents. Its applicability to an inspection of land or other premises is also debatable.

Before 2010, someone seeking to domesticate a subpoena in California might get three different answers from three different courts based on the same California statute, which itself had changed three times in five years. Some courts charged nothing to issue; others charged a full new case filing fee. Armed with a Texas-court issued letters rogatory, and former Section 2029.010 allowing a California subpoena to be issued, California process server Tony Klein got three different responses from courts in San Mateo, San Francisco and San Diego. When Klein presented his Texas papers to a San Mateo clerk, the clerk simply issued and sealed a California subpoena without charging a fee. Yet a San Francisco clerk required Klein to run an obstacle course of “gotchas.” Klein’s first attempt was rejected because the Texas documents were not certified. The second attempt was rejected because a civil case cover sheet was not signed by a California attorney and did not include a petition and declaration. The San Francisco clerk explained rejection was not based on a statute, but only a directive from his boss A California attorney was retained to prepare and sign the required petition and declaration. When Klein returned a third time, his papers were rejected because the defendant was actually the petitioner. In the fourth go-around, the San Francisco clerk advised he could only fill in a case number on the subpoena, but not issue it, as court clerks don’t issue subpoenas anymore. Tony Klein’s ordeal brings to mind Kafka’s parable Before The Law:

At the moment the gate to the law stands open, as always, and the gate
keeper walks to the side, so the man bends over in order to see through the gate into the inside. When the gate keeper notices that, he laughs and says: “If it tempts you so much, try it in spite of my prohibition. But take note: I am powerful. And I am only the most lowly gatekeeper. But from room to room stand gatekeepers, each more powerful than the other. I can’t endure even one glimpse of the third.” The man from the country has not expected such difficulties: the law should always be accessible for everyone, he thinks.

Fifteen years later, the court process is night and day different. “It’s pretty easy
now,” Klein said. “It’s all codified.”

Three states have still not adopted any form of the UIDDA: Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Missouri. A California attorney needing records or a deposition in Boston faces a cumbersome procedure. Under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 223A, Section 11, a California litigant must first obtain a commission from the California Superior Court, authorizing the issuance of a subpoena in Massachusetts. The California attorney must then hire Massachusetts local counsel to file a motion for issuance of a Massachusetts subpoena, based on the California subpoena and proposed Massachusetts subpoena. The motion must show how the discovery is material and necessary for the California case that the discovery cannot be obtained by other means, and that the discovery does not impose an undue burden on the Massachusetts witness. The Massachusetts court will approve, modify, or deny a Massachusetts subpoena.

Three states have still not adopted any form of the
UIDDA: Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Missouri.

Hopefully, the holdout states will adopt the UIDDA so that it can truly be “uniform” and the flow of evidence from one state to another will match modern litigation practices to the benefit of attorneys and their clients. The UIDDA would
actually become the state courts’ version of “universally admired” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 it was modelled on. Reciprocity requirements would be pointless when every state is a UIDDA state.