Applicable to deponents who must be subpoenaed.

- O.C.G.A. § 9-11-45 provides for treatment of deponents for whom subpoenas must be issued (i.e., witnesses) that is distinct from the treatment of the deponents for whom only a notice of deposition must be given (i.e., parties). Warehouse Home Furn. Distrib., Inc. v. Davenport, 261 Ga. 853, 413 S.E.2d 195 (1992).

Geographic limits in subsection (b) do not apply to parties.

- Holding in Blanton v. Blanton, 259 Ga. 622, 385 S.E.2d 672 (1989), concerning the geographic limitations of subsection (b) of O.C.G.A. § 9-11-45, is not applicable when a notice of deposition has issued to a party in the lawsuit. Warehouse Home Furn. Distrib., Inc. v. Davenport, 261 Ga. 853, 413 S.E.2d 195 (1992).

Motorist's suit was properly dismissed under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-37(d) due to the motorist's failure to attend three scheduled depositions. That defense counsel's office was located more than 30 miles from where the motorist resided did not excuse the motorist from attending a properly noticed deposition as the geographical limitations of O.C.G.A. § 9-11-45(b) were not applicable because a notice of deposition was issued under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-30 to a party in the lawsuit. Pascal v. Prescod, 296 Ga. App. 359, 674 S.E.2d 623 (2009).

Out-of-state resident cannot be compelled to come to Georgia for the purpose of taking a deposition. Blanton v. Blanton, 259 Ga. 622, 385 S.E.2d 672 (1989).

Non-resident judgment debtor.

- Trial court had jurisdiction to compel a non-resident judgment debtor to attend a postjudgment deposition in Georgia; under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-69, the judgment creditor was entitled to notice the deposition under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-30, and the geographical limitations of O.C.G.A. § 9-11-45 did not apply. Heard v. Ruef, Ga. App. , 815 S.E.2d 607 (2018).

Subpoena properly quashed.

- Trial court properly quashed a deposition subpoena to an arbitrator as the trial court was authorized to find that the court could determine whether the arbitrator acted in disregard of the law on the record; the deposition of the arbitrator was not needed. Doman v. Stapleton, 272 Ga. App. 114, 611 S.E.2d 673 (2005).

Cited in Brown v. State, 238 Ga. 98, 231 S.E.2d 65 (1976); Norfolk S. Ry. v. Hartry, 316 Ga. App. 532, 729 S.E.2d 656 (2012); Howard v. Alegria, 321 Ga. App. 178, 739 S.E.2d 95 (2013).

When subpoenas should issue.

- Subpoena issued pursuant to former O.C.G.A. § 24-10-22(a) (see now O.C.G.A. § 24-13-23) should only be issued for actual hearings and trials and should not be requested when in fact no hearing or trial had been scheduled. Likewise, a subpoena issued pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-11-45 of the Civil Practice Act (see now O.C.G.A. Ch. 11, T. 9) should be requested and issued only for depositions which have been actually scheduled by agreement between the parties or when a notice of deposition had been filed and served upon all parties, and should not be issued when no deposition had been scheduled. Adv. Op. No. 84-40 (September 21, 1984).

Notice of deposition required.

- O.C.G.A. § 9-11-45 provides that a subpoena shall issue for persons sought to be deposed and may command the person to produce documents. O.C.G.A. § 9-11-30(b)(1) requires notice to every other party of all depositions. Reading §§ 9-11-30 and9-11-45 together, it is obvious that before a subpoena can be issued, notice of the deposition must be given to all parties. Adv. Op. No. 84-40 (September 21, 1984).

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 23 Am. Jur. 2d, Depositions and Discovery, § 203 et seq.

C.J.S.

- 26A C.J.S., Depositions, §§ 59, 60, 61. 27 C.J.S., Discovery, §§ 63, 66, 67. 98 C.J.S., Witnesses, § 21 et seq.

ALR.

- Subpoena duces tecum for production of items held by a foreign custodian in another country, 82 A.L.R.2d 1403.