Court Clarifies Rules for Nonparty Subpoenas

, New York Law Journal


The Court of Appeals ruled that the way the First and Fourth departments interpreted the standard for enforcing subpoenas to nonparties in litigation was the "appropriate" one, largely because it better adhered to New York's "liberal" discovery policies than the interpretation by the Second and Third departments did.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at

Originally appeared in print as Courts' Enforcement of Subpoenas to Nonparties Clarified

What's being said

  • A great day for systemic enhanced transparency; and the greater truth will serve to better find a merit-based resolution sooner. Clearly, a great day for litigants. Non-parties, however, will need to be more careful who they interact with, as the risk of having to testify or produce documents just went up. It is, as it should be.

    Dated: 4/4/14
    Ravi Batra

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202649865358

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.