A. A subpoena for the attendance of a witness or for production of documentary evidence issued in a civil or criminal proceeding and directed to a person engaged in gathering, reporting, writing, editing, publishing or broadcasting news to the public, and which relates to matters within these news activities, shall have attached to it an affidavit of a person with a direct interest in the matters sought which states all of the following:
1. Each item of documentary and evidentiary information sought from the person subpoenaed.
2. That the affiant or his representative has attempted to obtain each item of information from all other available sources, specifying which items the affiant has been unable to obtain.
3. The identity of the other sources from which the affiant or his representative has attempted to obtain the information.
4. That the information sought is relevant and material to the affiant's cause of action or defense.
5. That the information sought is not protected by any lawful privilege.
6. That the subpoena is not intended to interfere with the gathering, writing, editing, publishing, broadcasting and disseminating of news to the public as protected by the first amendment, Constitution of the United States, or by article II, section 6, Constitution of Arizona.
B. A subpoena served on a person described in subsection A without the required affidavit attached to it has no effect.
C. If the affidavit is controverted or a motion to quash the subpoena or for a protective order is filed by the person subpoenaed, the command of the subpoena shall be postponed until a hearing is held and an order is entered by the court. After the hearing the command of the subpoena shall be carried out in accordance with the order of the court.
D. This section does not apply to a subpoena for the attendance of a witness or the production of documentary evidence issued by or on behalf of a grand jury or a magistrate during an investigative criminal proceeding.
Notes of Decisions
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Reinstein, 381 P.3d 236 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 22× “PNI argues that because the affidavit accompanying the subpoena for D’Anna’s interview notes did not satisfy Arizona’s Media Subpoena Law, A.R.S. § 12-2214, PNI was not required to disclose the information to Gary Michael Moran, the real party in interest.”
Bartlett v. Superior Ct. in & for Pima Cty., 722 P.2d 346 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 18× “The petition was filed following the order of the trial court requiring production of a videotape which had been subpoenaed pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2214. Because the petition raises issues of first impression and of statewide importance, and because the petitioners have no…”
Matera v. Superior Court, 825 P.2d 971 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 11× “We accepted jurisdiction because the case presents a novel question concerning an Arizona statute that has not been fully construed or interpreted by our appellate courts, A.R.S. § 12-2214. 1 The issues presented are purely questions of law, and are of great interest and…”
Lathrop v. Arizona Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners, 894 P.2d 715 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 4× “Quashing of Subpoena Lathrop next submits that the Board violated section 12-2214 when it quashed the subpoena for the attendance at the hearing of the television reporter who had initiated the story on Doctor’s Choice.”
State v. Ferreira, 731 P.2d 1233 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 2× “The subpoena was quashed for failure to conform with the technical requirements of A.R.S. § 12-2214. Having found defendant’s confession admissible, we need not reach the state’s cross-appeal challenging that quashing.”
State v. Walker, 914 P.2d 1320 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
“Writing a book was not part of Stedino’s contract with the County Attorney’s Office; it was a personal venture of Stedino’s.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2214(6) — 1 case
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Reinstein, 381 P.3d 236 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“PNI argues that because the affidavit accompanying the subpoena for D’Anna’s interview notes did not satisfy Arizona’s Media Subpoena Law, A.R.S. § 12-2214, PNI was not required to disclose the information to Gary Michael Moran, the real party in interest.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2214(A) — 3 cases
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Reinstein, 381 P.3d 236 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“PNI argues that because the affidavit accompanying the subpoena for D’Anna’s interview notes did not satisfy Arizona’s Media Subpoena Law, A.R.S. § 12-2214, PNI was not required to disclose the information to Gary Michael Moran, the real party in interest.”
Matera v. Superior Court, 825 P.2d 971 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992).
“We accepted jurisdiction because the case presents a novel question concerning an Arizona statute that has not been fully construed or interpreted by our appellate courts, A.R.S. § 12-2214. 1 The issues presented are purely questions of law, and are of great interest and…”
Lathrop v. Arizona Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners, 894 P.2d 715 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
“Quashing of Subpoena Lathrop next submits that the Board violated section 12-2214 when it quashed the subpoena for the attendance at the hearing of the television reporter who had initiated the story on Doctor’s Choice.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2214(A)(1) — 1 case
Bartlett v. Superior Ct. in & for Pima Cty., 722 P.2d 346 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
“The petition was filed following the order of the trial court requiring production of a videotape which had been subpoenaed pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2214. Because the petition raises issues of first impression and of statewide importance, and because the petitioners have no…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2214(A)(2) — 1 case
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Reinstein, 381 P.3d 236 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“PNI argues that because the affidavit accompanying the subpoena for D’Anna’s interview notes did not satisfy Arizona’s Media Subpoena Law, A.R.S. § 12-2214, PNI was not required to disclose the information to Gary Michael Moran, the real party in interest.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2214(A)(4) — 2 cases
Lathrop v. Arizona Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners, 894 P.2d 715 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
“Quashing of Subpoena Lathrop next submits that the Board violated section 12-2214 when it quashed the subpoena for the attendance at the hearing of the television reporter who had initiated the story on Doctor’s Choice.”
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Reinstein, 381 P.3d 236 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“PNI argues that because the affidavit accompanying the subpoena for D’Anna’s interview notes did not satisfy Arizona’s Media Subpoena Law, A.R.S. § 12-2214, PNI was not required to disclose the information to Gary Michael Moran, the real party in interest.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2214(C) — 2 cases
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Reinstein, 381 P.3d 236 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“PNI argues that because the affidavit accompanying the subpoena for D’Anna’s interview notes did not satisfy Arizona’s Media Subpoena Law, A.R.S. § 12-2214, PNI was not required to disclose the information to Gary Michael Moran, the real party in interest.”
Bartlett v. Superior Ct. in & for Pima Cty., 722 P.2d 346 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
“The petition was filed following the order of the trial court requiring production of a videotape which had been subpoenaed pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2214. Because the petition raises issues of first impression and of statewide importance, and because the petitioners have no…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.