California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Shively v. Stewart, 421 P.2d 65, 55 Cal.Rptr. 217, 65 Cal.2d 475 (Cal. 1966):
The Attorney General contends, however, that even if discovery is proper, the subpoenas duces tecum requested are so broad that had they issued, they would be subject to a motion to quash or modify in the superior court. Normally a motion to quash or modify should be made in the superior court after the subpoenas have issued. Since the entire case is now before us and the matter of the scope of the subpoenas has been fully briefed, no purpose but delay would be served by refusing to consider it. (See Hagan v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.2d 498, 502, 2 Cal.Rptr. 288, 348 P.2d 896, and cases cited.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.