Motion for Order Authorizing Limited Early Discovery
seq., also known as the Partition of Real Property Act (the “Act”). The Act “applies to actions for partition of real property filed on or after January 1, 2023” (Code Civ. Proc., § 874.311(c), emphasis supplied) and includes a procedure by which cotenants may buy out the interests of the cotenant requesting partition by sale.
The Act does not appear to apply here, as this action was filed on 5/24/22, i.e., this action was filed before January 2023.
Instead, the sale procedures set forth in Code of Civil Procedure sections 873.510 et seq. apply to this partition sale, as reflected in the Interlocutory Judgment issued 7/28/25.
Status Conference
No Tentative.
8 Audenis vs. Motion for Order Authorizing Limited Early Discovery patrickaudenis.com The court DENIES Plaintiff PATRICK AUDENIS’s motion for a court “order authorizing limited early discovery for the purpose of identifying the anonymous Doe defendant(s) in this action.”
It remains unclear why Plaintiff needs to have an order from this court to have discovery. (See 1/30/26 and 4/17/26 Minute Orders.) Generally, a plaintiff does not need leave of court to serve subpoenas on third parties. Any discovery “stay” at the outset of an action applies to parties, not nonparties. Discovery holds and cutoffs do not restrict a party’s ability to conduct informal investigations, including contacting nonparty witnesses, obtaining public records, or otherwise gathering information from third parties (See Pullin v. Superior Court (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1161, 1165, fn. 4; County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 819, 829.)
As Plaintiff is currently self-represented, he cannot himself issue a subpoena. The only persons authorized by law to
issue a subpoena are a judge, court clerk, or an attorney at law who is an attorney of record. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1985
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
A subpoena however may be issued by the Clerk “signed and sealed but otherwise in blank to a party requesting it, who shall fill it in before service.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1985(c). See also, Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.210(a) [“The clerk of the court in which the action is pending shall issue a deposition subpoena signed and sealed, but otherwise in blank, to a party requesting it, who shall fill it in before service”]; McLeod v. Board of Pension Commissioners (1970) 14 Cal.App.3d 23, 28 [“[w]hen a civil action is pending in the courts, issuance of an ordinary subpoena is a matter of statutory right and neither a clerk nor court has discretion to refuse such issuance (Citation), even though the subpoena may be subject to a motion to quash or suppress, after issuance.”].)
Here, it appears that Plaintiff already obtained a signed and sealed subpoena from the Clerk. That subpoena is directed at “Custodian of Records, CLOUDFLARE INC” and the subpoena is attached to the motion at page 11. The subpoena, however, is not accompanied by a proof of service. As such, Plaintiff does not show that the subpoena has been served.
In sum, it remains unclear what more Plaintiff seeks from this court, and accordingly, the court denies the motion.
Clerk to give notice.
9 Lynch vs. Liberty Motion to Hold Judgment Debtor in Contempt Debt Solution, LLC The court DENIES Judgment Creditors/Cross-Complainants PREFERRED FINANCE, LLC (fka LIBERTY DEBT SOLUTIONS, LLC) and BRIAN ROCHE’s motion to hold Cross- Defendant/Judgment Debtor THOMAS LYNCH (“Lynch”) in contempt of court.
5