133 So. 3d 914
Fla.2013Background
- Criminal defendants sought the computer source codes for the Intoxilyzer 8000 from CMI, a Kentucky company, by serving its Florida-registered agent, even though the materials were located out-of-state.
- Florida Fifth District held that the Uniform Law (chapter 942) governs subpoenas to out-of-state, nonparty witnesses and materials, disallowing service on a registered agent to obtain out-of-state documents.
- Several DUI cases involved subpoenas directed to CMI’s records custodian, demanding production of source codes and (in some cases) out-of-state testimony.
- Question presented: does designation of a foreign corporation’s Florida registered agent expand Florida courts’ subpoena power beyond state borders in criminal prosecutions?
- Florida Supreme Court approved the Fifth District, disapproving Landrum and General Motors to the extent inconsistent, and held Uniform Law applies to subpoenas for out-of-state documents as well as witnesses.
- CMI admitted it had no Florida offices/employees/documents; the court concluded the Uniform Law cannot be circumvented by serving on a registered agent for out-of-state documents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Uniform Law apply to subpoenas for documents only? | Ulloa argues Uniform Law governs out-of-state document subpoenas. | CMI argues Uniform Law not required for documents via Florida agent. | Uniform Law applies to subpoenas for documents as well as witnesses. |
| May a Florida registered agent service compel production of out-of-state documents? | Ulloa relies on agent service as authority to compel production. | CMI contends service on agent extends no authority beyond Uniform Law. | No; registered-agent service cannot bypass Uniform Law for out-of-state documents. |
| What is the relationship between service of process, personal jurisdiction, and subpoena power? | Landrum treats registered-agent service as enabling subpoena power. | CMI argues subpoena power does not extend beyond state lines absent Uniform Law. | They are distinct; service of process and personal jurisdiction do not enlarge subpoena power beyond state lines. |
| When must Florida courts use Uniform Law to obtain out-of-state witnesses or documents? | Out-of-state materials require Uniform Law coordination with sister states. | If not relying on Uniform Law, subpoenas on Florida agents suffice. | Uniform Law procedures are required for out-of-state witnesses or documents. |
Key Cases Cited
- CMI, Inc. v. Ulloa, 73 So.3d 787 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (holds Uniform Law is exclusive method to compel out-of-state witnesses/documents)
- CMI, Inc. v. Landrum, 64 So.3d 693 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (Uniform Law applies to witnesses and documents; not to Florida-registered agent subpoenas only)
- General Motors Corp. v. State, 357 So.2d 1045 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (subpoena power limitations discussed; conflicts with Ulloa)
- New York v. O’Neill, 359 U.S. 1 (1959) (uniform law reciprocity to facilitate out-of-state witness attendance)
- Yeary v. State, 711 S.E.2d 694 (Ga. 2011) (Georgia Supreme Court holds Uniform Act extends to witnesses and documents)