ROYGENE ROBINSON ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Plaintiffs appealed an order quashing a subpoena duces tecum and notice of deposition directed to a non-party witness, arguing the defendants lacked standing to seek the quash and that no showing of unreasonableness or oppressiveness was made.
A party has standing to seek an order quashing a subpoena duces tecum directed to a non-party witness on the grounds that it is unreasonable and oppressive, and the trial court has discretion to quash such a subpoena if facts are presented showing its unreasonableness and oppressiveness.
Plaintiffs sought equitable relief and appealed an order quashing a subpoena duces tecum and notice of deposition directed to a non-party witness. The…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
PER CURIAM:
Under our liberal notice pleading today, we think it would have been more appropriate to keep the Police Commissioners in the action until at least the plaintiffs presented their factual ease. No indication is given as to what ultimate decision should be made on the merits. As to the members of the Los Angeles City Council, we can find no basis for keeping them in the case. As to the Council members, we affirm the dismissal.
Remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.
Judge ELY would also reverse as to the members of the Council because of his belief that there is now an inadequate factual record on which to make a dis-positive decision as to the members of the Council.
Judge KILKENNY would affirm the decision as made.