Practice Tip: The UIDDA

In the past, if you needed to secure documents or depose a witness outside of your jurisdiction, you had to secure something called a foreign commission. Essentially, one filed a motion in the state court to be permitted to conduct discovery outside of the state. The opposing parties could contest the motion, typically on the basis that the evidence was not relevant or was a mere fishing expedition. If the relief was granted, you next hired counsel in the jurisdiction where the evidence or witness was located. That attorney would file a miscellaneous action in the foreign court (“foreign” meaning outside state where the action is pending) specifying the needed discovery, indicating that the state where the action is pending approved pursuit of it and asking for leave to proceed in the other state. This action would be served on the witness or records custodian outside of the state. That person or entity had its own right to ask that the relief be denied. Again, most often, the basis would be lack of relevance.

The Uniform Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act (UIDDA) has been adopted by 31 states. The purpose is to streamline the old cumbersome procedure by making it a one-step process. For example, if you are a litigant in Pennsylvania and need evidence in New York, you will need to follow the New York statute and engage counsel in New York to take the discovery. But the “permission” part of the old foreign commission rules has been abandoned in states that have adopted the UIDDA.

Under the applicable rules of court, parties served with such a subpoena can file for a protective order or similar relief if they wish to oppose the discovery request. Otherwise, the reissued foreign supoena (now in its Pennsylvania form under the example) is subject to the same powers as any other Pennsylvania subpoena, including the right to enforce through contempt.

Parties may informally comply with the UIDDA. The remedy is limited to subpoenae issued by any of the United States, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the District of Columbia.

Mark Ashton'is a Partner at Fox Rothschild, LLP. He serves as Vice Chair of the Pennsylvania Family Section.

In the past, if you needed to secure documents or depose a witness outside of your jurisdiction, you had to secure something called a foreign commission. Essentially, one filed a motion in the state court to be permitted to conduct discovery outside of the state. The opposing parties could contest the motion, typically on the basis that the evidence was not relevant or was a mere fishing expedition. If the relief was granted, you next hired counsel in the jurisdiction where the evidence or witness was located. That attorney would file a miscellaneous action in the foreign court (“foreign” meaning outside state where the action is pending) specifying the needed discovery, indicating that the state where the action is pending approved pursuit of it and asking for leave to proceed in the other state. This action would be served on the witness or records custodian outside of the state. That person or entity had its own right to ask that the relief be denied. Again, most often, the basis would be lack of relevance.

The Uniform Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act (UIDDA) has been adopted by 31 states. The purpose is to streamline the old cumbersome procedure by making it a one-step process. For example, if you are a litigant in Pennsylvania and need evidence in New York, you will need to follow the New York statute and engage counsel in New York to take the discovery. But the “permission” part of the old foreign commission rules has been abandoned in states that have adopted the UIDDA.

Under the applicable rules of court, parties served with such a subpoena can file for a protective order or similar relief if they wish to oppose the discovery request. Otherwise, the reissued foreign supoena (now in its Pennsylvania form under the example) is subject to the same powers as any other Pennsylvania subpoena, including the right to enforce through contempt.

Parties may informally comply with the UIDDA. The remedy is limited to subpoenae issued by any of the United States, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the District of Columbia.

Mark Ashton'is a Partner at Fox Rothschild, LLP. He serves as Vice Chair of the Pennsylvania Family Section.