The term subpoena duces tecum is used in the United States, and some other common law jurisdictions such as South Africa and Canada.
The summons is called a "subpoena for production of evidence" in some U.S. states that have sought to reduce the use of non-English words and phrases in court terminology.
However, unlike the latter summons, the subpoena duces tecum instructs the witness to bring in hand books, papers, or evidence for the court.
The phrase sub poena duces tecum is a Latin expression meaning literally "under [threat of] penalty [or punishment], you will bring [it] with you."
[1] The method of using a subpoena duces tecum is generally valid only to compel a witness to produce documents and other things at the time of the deposition.
If a deponent is a non-party to the action (not involved directly in the litigation, but wanted for testimony), production of documents can be compelled only through a proper subpoena duces tecum.
In the Ninth Circuit, interpreting Rule 27 literally, it has been held that a party can simply produce the documents only, and in certain cases, avoid an oral deposition when presented with a subpoena duces tecum.
[3] A continuance (a rescheduling of a court hearing at a later date) of a civil action may be granted due to the absence of documents or papers.
The party failing to produce the documents requested by a subpoena duces tecum must show good reason why there was a failure to do so.
And if the proceedings should be treated as involving a final determination as on issues joined to the right to such possession and custody, there was no complaint of want of notice or of hearing, and the summary made adopted did not in itself affect the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court upon the ground that it had exceeded its powers.
[13][14][15] Mandamus is the proper remedy to compel the quashing of a subpoena duces tecum for the production before a grand jury of documents protected by attorney–client privilege.
[19][20] At common law, and under various statutes pertaining to a given jurisdiction, a right to action for damages, or for a statutory penalty or forfeiture, exists against a witness who, without sufficient excuse, fails or refuses to give oral testimony or to produce documents or other specified items in obedience to the command of a properly issued and served subpoena.
[21] There are certain conditions precedent, or defenses, to a recovery of damages for a person's failure to testify, or to provide documents pertinent to a hearing or trial.
A similar situation exists with "work product", meaning written documents or computer records generated in preparation for a trial or hearing.
The usual rule is that medical records are immune from subpoena if the plaintiff has not alleged physical or mental injuries or damages.
Once the plaintiff alleges physical or mental injuries proximately flowing from a potentially tortious act by the defendant, or in some other disability hearing, medical records can be subject to subpoena duces tecum.
While witnesses may try to resist legal discovery by asking the judge to protect them from questioning or inspection of documents, the policy of the courts is in favor of full disclosure.
So-called "fishing expeditions" (massive and aimless calls for all documents related to the litigation) are permissible under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 (b) (1).
[32] Peer review records, and other hospital documents of quality control committee meetings are generally not subject to subpoena duces tecum, since these have statutory immunity.
[42][43][44][45][46] United States Code 11, Section 107 (a), of the federal bankruptcy law, is a codification of the common-law general right to inspect judicial records and documents.
Nor can records be withheld from subpoena duces tecum on the grounds that production of such documents would incriminate officers or other members of the foreign corporation.
Statutes designed to limit welfare record availability are generally held by the courts to be not immune from the power of subpoena duces tecum.
These, along with common law, and state and federal constitutions guaranteeing freedom of the press do not give newspapers (or other news media) the right to access the names of persons on welfare, or the amounts they receive.
An injunction by a federal court does not have the power to restrain the FTC from enforcing an order requiring corporations to furnish reports and documents un 15 USC § 49.
The only relief available to stop a demand for documents is to seek an action of compliance in mandamus by the Attorney General of the United States, or under 15 USC § 50 to enforce fines and forfeitures.
[91][92] The theory at trial was that the plaintiff, a child of about 12 months of age, had been returned to a home where further physical abuse occurred, causing more damages.
Reporting of such cases usually voids any challenge to subpoena duces tecum of the medical records by police or state authorities.
[105] The issue of removal of a doctor from a hospital staff, or revoking or limiting a license to practice medicine usually involve various state and federal immunities.
The American Medical Association conducted a probe of the sham peer review issue and found that no pervasive problem exists.
[106] Opponents of peer review counter that the sparcity of successful challenges is indicative of how widespread the problem is and how difficult these actions are to win.