Doe

Doe v. Luster CA5

Caution
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 29, 2024F084919California3,248 words

Opinion

Opinion

Snauffer, J.

BACKGROUND

In 2003, a judgment was entered in Ventura County Superior Court in favor of plaintiff Lynn Doe against Luster for $19,000,000. Doe renewed the judgment in 2012 and 2017, which now totals over $70,000,000. In February 2022, Doe applied for an order for appearance and examination (“ORAP”) of Luster. Since Doe is an inmate at Valley State Prison in Madera County, Doe filed the application in Madera County Superior Court.1 The court issued the ORAP on March 2, 2022,2 setting Luster’s examination for April 29. According to a filed proof of service, a registered process server served the ORAP and a subpoena duces tecum on “J. Delatorre, Liaison Officer,” at Valley State Prison on April 11. On April 14, Luster signed a Notice of Remote Appearance for his scheduled April 29 examination. Doe’s counsel filed the signed notice with the court on April 19. On April 28, Luster, through his counsel, moved to quash the subpoena duces tecum and for a protective order. He argued he was never served with the ORAP and was invalidly served with the subpoena duces tecum. In his supporting declaration, he stated he was invalidly served with the subpoena on April 13 by his correctional…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.