Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A judicial order compelling a person to appear at a specified time and place to give testimony or to produce designated documents or other tangible items.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Deposition Attendance Compelled
Winona Walsh sued Watershed Pharmaceuticals for product liability. Her counsel noticed the deposition of a company scientist. When the scientist failed to appear voluntarily, Walsh served a subpoena under Rule 45 to compel attendance at the deposition. The scientist appeared and answered questions about testing protocols.
Document Production Ordered
In a federal fraud prosecution, the government issued a subpoena to Wanda Weaver directing her to produce billing records and appointment logs. Weaver appeared before trial with the designated materials. The court permitted the parties to inspect the documents before they were offered into evidence.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Statutes
Federal Rules
Uniform Acts
Model Codes
Study Supplements
Whitney White, a special prosecutor, obtained a subpoena duces tecum requiring President Wyatt Wilson to produce Oval Office recordings. Wilson resisted on executive privilege grounds. The court enforced the subpoena after balancing the need for evidence against confidentiality claims.
United States v. Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States418 U.S. 683, 710 (1974)
Work Product Withheld
Whitney Washington served a subpoena on Wren Wright seeking statements taken from witnesses in anticipation of litigation. Wright refused production, asserting work-product protection. The court sustained the objection because the materials reflected counsel's mental impressions.
Hickman v. Taylor329 U.S. 495, 507 (1949)
Executive Records Demanded
A congressional committee issued a subpoena to Winslow Aviation for internal emails concerning agency contracts. The company resisted, citing burdens on the executive branch. The court required a showing that the legislative purpose justified the request and that less intrusive alternatives were unavailable.
Cheney v. United States District Court for the District of Columbia542 U.S. 367 (S.Ct.2004)
Protective Order Sought
Warwick Electronics received a subpoena for customer lists in a civil suit. The company moved for a protective order arguing that disclosure would harm ongoing business operations. The court limited the scope of production to protect confidential commercial information while permitting necessary discovery.
Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart467 U.S. 20, 32–33, 36 (1984)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
5
What must a subpoena state to be valid under the Federal Rules?+
A subpoena must command the recipient to attend and testify or to produce designated documents. It must also specify the method of recording testimony when used for a deposition.
Supporting sources
Can a defendant obtain a subpoena without paying witness fees in a criminal case?+
A defendant may apply ex parte for a subpoena when unable to pay fees and when the witness is necessary for an adequate defense. The court must issue the subpoena if those showings are made.
Supporting sources
When may a court quash or modify a subpoena for documents?+
A court may quash or modify a subpoena if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive. The recipient must make a prompt motion raising that ground.
Supporting sources
Does the Fifth Amendment protect a corporate custodian from producing corporate records?+
A corporate custodian cannot invoke the Fifth Amendment to resist a subpoena for corporate records. Production is treated as an act of the corporation rather than a personal testimonial act.
Supporting sources
May a prosecutor subpoena a lawyer to testify about a client in a criminal proceeding?+
A prosecutor may not subpoena a lawyer to present evidence about a past or present client unless the prosecutor reasonably believes the information is not protected by privilege and the evidence is necessary.
Supporting sources
418 U.S. 683, 710 (1974)Evidence
…of the President of the United States in United States v. Mitchell et al. (D.C. Crim. No. 74-110), to quash a third-party subpoena duces tecum issued pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c). The subpoena directed the President to produce certain tape recordings and documents relating to his conversations with aides and…