Civiletti v. Municipal Court

California Court of Appeal Feb 23, 1981 No. Civ. 59704Published

Before: Early

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a state court cannot compel the United States Attorney General to comply with subpoenas for testimony or official records due to the doctrine of sovereign immunity and the lack of a compelling showing of necessity. Furthermore, the court affirmed that a writ of mandate is the appropriate remedy to quash such subpoenas.

Issues

Whether a writ of mandate is the appropriate remedy to challenge a municipal court's refusal to quash subpoenas directed at the U.S. Attorney General.
Whether the doctrine of sovereign immunity bars state court subpoenas directed at the U.S. Attorney General for official records and personal testimony.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Mandamus to a court to compel it to quash a subpoena duces tecum has traditionally been recognized as the appropriate remedy.”

“an attempt to compel compliance with either subpoena by the Attorney General founders like the Titanic on the hard rock of sovereign immunity.”

“A highly placed public officer should not be required to respond to a personal subpoena in his official capacity in the absence of compelling reasons.”

Opinion

EARLY, J.

John Monica, defendant in a pending murder case, appeals from a judgment of the superior court ordering that a writ of mandate issue directing the municipal court to quash the service of a personal subpoena and of a subpoena duces tecum upon Griffin Bell, then Attorney General of the United States, requiring him to appear personally in the municipal court and to produce documents which both parties assume in their briefs to consist of official records of the United States Department of Justice. On February 6, 1979, Attorney General Bell filed a motion in the municipal court to quash both subpoenas. On June 4, 1979, the municipal court issued a tentative decision denying the motion and requiring compliance with the subpoenas by July 20, 1979.

On July 3, 1979, Attorney General Bell filed a petition to remove the subpoena matter to the United States District Court for the Central District of California pursuant to 28 United States Code section 1442(a)(1). On August 16, 1979, Attorney General Griffin Bell resigned and was replaced by Benjamin Civiletti who, of course, has now been replaced by William French Smith. On October 9, 1979, the United States District Court ordered the Bell subpoenas remanded to the state court. On January 21, 1980, reconsideration of this order was denied.

On March 3, 1980, former Attorney General Griffin Bell filed further motions in the municipal court to quash the subpoenas on addi

[108]

tional grounds. On March 10, 1980, defendant Monica filed in the same court a motion to substitute Attorney General Civiletti for former Attorney General Bell on both subpoenas. Both motions were heard together on March 17, 1980. The court ruled that the subpoenas were enforceable against Attorney General Civiletti and substituted Mr. Civiletti for Mr. Bell on each subpoena. Attorney General Civiletti was then required to comply with those subpoenas on July 21, 1980, or show cause why he should not be held in contempt.

On April 16, 1980, Attorney General Civiletti filed a petition for a writ of mandate in the superior court asking that the subpoenas be ordered quashed. After hearing, on May 23, 1980, the superior court ordered both subpoenas to be quashed. This appeal followed.

Civiletti v. Municipal Court

AI Brief

EARLY, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief