Andy King writes:
𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗛𝗮𝗿𝘃𝗮𝗿𝗱’𝘀 𝗹𝗮𝘄𝘆𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝘀𝘂𝗯𝗽𝗼𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗲𝗱 𝗺𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀𝗰𝗮 𝗚𝗶𝗻𝗼 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲
My wife called to me. A constable was at the door.
He handed me a subpoena to appear for a deposition in the case of Francesca Gino v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Srikant Datar.
The subpoena puzzled us. I don’t believe I’ve ever met Francesca Gino, and I am certainly not an expert on her case. Why not call me or email me with any questions?
As directed, I arrived at the offices of Ropes & Gray, Harvard’s white-shoe law firm. I was seated in a conference room with a commanding view of Boston. Thick binders sat on the table. Video cameras were pointed at me, and a microphone clipped to my collar.
One of Harvard’s lawyers opened a binder and began the deposition. She asked about my career, publications, emails, opinions, and LinkedIn posts. Each item was examined, reviewed, noted, and filed away. Page by page. Hour by hour.
The reason for the subpoena became clear.
Harvard’s lawyers asked pointed questions about my allegations of research misconduct against HBS professor 𝗚𝗲𝗼𝗿𝗴𝗲 𝗦𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗳𝗲𝗶𝗺—and they seemed interested in how those allegations compared with the ones against Francesca Gino.
A lawyer later explained the logic. In a case like this, one side may try to show that similar situations have been treated differently.
Here, both Harvard Business School professors have been accused of research misconduct. Yet only Gino lost her tenure and her position at Harvard.
Why?
At the time of my deposition, I had not given that question much thought. But nothing focuses the mind like a deposition.
So, over the next few posts I will consider:
• Do the complaints satisfy Harvard’s standards for research misconduct?
• Is there evidence of a pattern?
• Are the allegations similarly serious?
• And any other questions that emerge.
We discussed King’s encounter with the work of George Serafeim in these two posts:
I have no reason to think that Harvard is worse than other institutions. They just get all the publicity. When bad things happen at the University of Nevada or the University of California, you only hear about it on this blog. When it happens at Harvard or Stanford, the news goes around the world.
I also want to know: How does this subpoena thing work? Can the lawyers hold you against your will? Do they pay you for your time? The only time I’ve ever been deposed, it was for a consulting project and I was being paid. The questions were really stupid and they went on for hours, but it didn’t bother me because I could just keep my mind focused on the check.
P.S. See here for some background on the Gino case.
P.P.S. Commenter K points to further information here.
Andrew, many of your questions about subpoena for a non-party are answered here (not the same court, but Massachusetts, where the Gino case is taking place):
https://www.masslegalhelp.org/children-families-divorce/probate-and-family-court/understanding-non-party-subpoenas-massachusetts-probate-and-family-court
The relevant phrase to search is “non-party subpoena”.
Disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer. But I’ve been an expert witness, and discussed with lawyers subpoena’ing people in a few cases.
Seth:
So, if I’ve read this correctly, the subpoena can only be for one day. This is potentially annoying but at least it’s time-limited.
Andrew: I’m way outside my expertise here (again, I-am-not-a-lawyer), but my understanding is not that it “can only be for one day”, but rather the time period must be specified as part of the subpoena. That is, someone can be subpoenaed for a day, or a week, or whatever, but you have to say how long, and usually one day is enough for whatever the lawyers want. That is, the rule is “x day(s), and you get whatever you can get in that time”, rather than “however long it takes to go through all the questions the lawyers want to ask”. Of course, the more time asked, the higher the chance the person is going to fight it as “unreasonable or oppressive.”. The “A $6.00 witness fee (for 1 day).” is per day – so e.g two days would be a $12 fee.
I’d really like a practicing lawyer to give a read on the situation, but my cynical speculation is that here Harvard is trying to get basically expert-witness testimony which would typically run them a four-figure or even five-figure sum, for the cost of a $6 fee. The right move would then have been for the guy to ell Harvard privately that he’d fight the subpoena, but propose Harvard hire him on the case as expert-witness for expert-witness type money. I disclaim once more, this is random conjecture and for entertainment purposes only.
Under the federal rules, depositions are one day of seven hours of questioning unless otherwise agreed or ordered.
Regarding expert verses fact witness (Not a lawyer but done in-house expert witness type work regarding discrimination and hang with lawyers.). A fact witness would be someone who is testifying over things they did/saw in the past while a expert witness is hired to provide new analysis of facts for the case.
It’s pretty clear from the context its not expert witness work from King but fact witness testimony. He didn’t do any new analysis but instead was providing facts about his past actions and prior judgments. In this sort of case, what the expert witness would likely doing is taking a list of recent misconduct charges leveled against Harvard faculty and how Harvard responded and comparing similar cases to Gino’s. King’s testimony would be used by the expert witness to conduct their analysis of and support their conclusions such as by comparing the severity of the accusations against Serafeim to those against Gino. The expert statements would likely be things like “Among the 5 recent cases with similarly severe miscount findings involving men, 3 resigned in liue of termination, one was demoted, and the last remains under review. Therefore, Harvard treated her similarly to others found to of committed similar misconduct.”
Hiring King as an expert witness would undermine his worth as a fact witness. By paying him Gino could claim “You are only saying that Gino’s actions were more severe than Serafeim because you are paid by Harvard.” This way they can get the facts of the accusation on the record and then have a second person offer an opinion on King’s accusations.
Paul: Thank you for that informative explanation. Though it still seems to me that King is being required here to do a significant amount of work for no pay (well, $6, but that’s essential no pay). And he has to risk whatever personal attacks Gino’s side throws at him. It strikes me as bad for him.
I do not know if the cited quotation by Andy King is original, but it is a clever variant and deserves recognition in this litigious world:
“At the time of my deposition, I had not given that question much thought. But nothing focuses the mind like a deposition.”
Yes, I was riffing off Samuel Johnson.
As someone mentions in the comment section on the linkedin post, it seems to me that these are very different kinds of cases. If I am not mistaken, “research misconduct” often refers to falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism and if memory serves me correct that was the issue at stake with the Gino case and not with the Serafeim case.
If it’s that obviously totally different, I don’t understand why any lawyer would spend so much time and effort on this by interviewing people. It seems to me that these are totally different kinds of cases, where only the Gino case may involve what is often clearly described and defined as “research misconduct” (which may be a valid reason for severe consequences like termination of employement).
If there is a comparison that’s perhaps more useful, it’s Gino & Diederik Stapel I think. Both the Gino and Stapel cases were about accusations of fabrication or falsification of data if I remember correctly. I think Stapel confessed somewhere in the process early on, and it might be interesting to think what might have happened if he didn’t, and simply started to sue everyone involved, or do some other stuff like blaiming his co-authors or PhD students.
Two quotes concerning the term “research misconduct”, one from a paper by Kornfeld (2012) titled “Research Misconduct: The Search for a Remedy”, and one from the investigative report into the Stapel fraud case by Levelt et al. (2012):
“Research misconduct—fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism—is an insidious problem in the scientific community today with the capacity to harm science, scientists, and the public.” (Kornfeld, 2012, p. 877)
“The European Code refers to ‘minor misdemeanours’: some data massage, the omission of some unwelcome observations, ‘favourable’ rounding off or summarizing, etc. This kind of misconduct is not categorized under the ‘big three’ (fabrication, falsification, plagiarism) but it is, in principle, equally unacceptable and may, if not identified or corrected, easily lead to more serious breaches of standards of integrity. For example, the Committees encountered many aspects of research practice that reveals sloppy science and verification bias.” (Levelt et al., 2012, pp. 57-58)
Coincidentally, Data Colada has a new post about the case: https://datacolada.org/136
It’s becoming increasingly clear it’s not an issue of whether she commited fraud anymore (she did), but whether she was treated fairly by Harvard.
K:
I don’t buy the whole “treated fairly” line. The standard of behavior at an organization shouldn’t be set to the worst things the organization has ever allowed. Columbia had a known sexual abuser on its staff for a long time. That doesn’t mean that anything short of sexual abuse should be ok. Harvard has a notorious plagiarist on staff and still hasn’t fired him. That doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t be allowed to discipline plagiarists. Etc. To let someone off from a serious offense just because someone else was allowed to get away with it . . . that way lies madness.
@Andrew:
There is a case to be made for equality in how we punish research misconduct. It may serve as a means to force more investigations into, and punishment of, research misconduct.
On a practical level, however, I am with you. I doubt strictly forcing equal treatment would lead to an equilibrium with less cheaters – under the current, discriminatory regime any cheater out of office is one vacant chair that may be filled with a non-cheater. It is not justice, but a better outcome IMO.
Raphael:
I think we’re in agreement.
Fairness is a good goal, and at some point things can be so unfair that it should make a difference. For example, stealing pens from the office might be a violation of Gino’s employment contract, but it would seem a bit much to fire her because of that.
But Harvard has forced professors to leave because of research misconduct. For example, Marc Hauser. They didn’t kick out Laurence Tribe or Claudine Gay for plagiarism, and I find plagiarism really annoying, but I don’t think it’s as serious a violation as fraudulent research.
I think the right way forward is for them to get more serious about sanctioning faculty for research misconduct, to raise the bar higher.
Andrew: There are many more gender bias allegations in the court documents than the few paragraphs I quoted, e.g. related to hiring and promotions. The argument seems to be trying to establish a pattern and claiming Gino’s treatment was part of it. Basically, IF Gino was railroaded per her story, why would Harvard/HBS do that? The answer she appears to be trying to argue (in court, though not so much in publicity) is gender bias. Harvard will obviously contest such an argument extensively. I think part of their counter-argument is that there’s no such pattern. Note (IANAL) I believe “suing everybody” is actually a bit dangerous to say was a factor in her outcome, because there’s some complicated quasi-paradoxes that roughly if someone sues on gender bias it can be a legal violation to treat them more harshly because they sued on gender bias (I don’t make the rules/law here).
Seth:
On one hand, Harvard is corrupt and has highly decorated faculty who have performed research misconduct. Beyond that, one of their former presidents was a plagiarist and another tried to use his position to intimidate student journalists. This is bad stuff! On the other hand, occasionally Harvard does get rid of miscreants. I wouldn’t want the existence of some corruption at Harvard to make it impossible for them to ever clean house, and I think it would horrible if a court says, effectively, that Harvard’s imperfections give lifetime tenure to any cheater who (a) manages to get a job at Harvard under false pretenses and then (b) sues after getting caught.
But that’s just my take. I, too, am not a lawyer. I did watch a bunch of episodes of L.A. Law back in the day, but I’m convinced that show had a malign influence on this country by giving people the impression that even the worst people deserve spectacular legal defenses. I’m ok with the principle that everyone, no matter how evil, can get their day in court with legal representation, but I don’t think that means that everyone deserves a Johnny Cochran level of defense, nor do I think it appropriate for lawyers to skirt ethical rules. See here for further discussion of this point.
Anyway, I don’t think we’re disagreeing here. I’m just emoting and you’re providing something closer to legal reasoning.
I think the question her lawyer may be raising is that the difference was due to gender or discipline. That said they could also be considering whether he should be fired.
What they really worry about is havnig to pay damages.
Andrew, the problem with “To let someone off from a serious offense just because someone else was allowed to get away with it . . . that way lies madness.” is that it runs into Gino’s legal claim of gender bias. She’s specifically alleging “selective enforcement”. Just to be clear, by noting she alleges this, I’m not endorsing it. However, it is an aspect of the case (interestingly, not a secret, but not publicized either in terms of PR strategy).
I grabbed this from case “Document 81-1 Filed 10/21/24”
330.308. Defendant Harvard has never placed a similarly situated tenured male professor at HBS on unpaid administrative leave or initiated tenure revocation proceedings based on allegations of research misconduct.
…
333.311. Harvard’s gender bias against women was a motivating factor in HBS’s decision to subject Plaintiff to an onerous investigation and to impose upon her severe penalties, including unpaid administrative leave for two years.
334.312. As a consequence of Defendant Harvard’s selective enforcement of the Interim Policy, Plaintiff has suffered harms that no similarly situated male tenured professor at HBS has suffered, including, inter alia, …
Seth:
I can see the point that Harvard hasn’t done anything regarding George Serafeim, but they did get rid of Marc Hauser a few years ago, and his offenses don’t seem quite so bad as Gino’s. The quote you give above refers to HBS, so, sure, that covers Serafeim, but it doesn’t cover Hauser who was in Arts & Sciences. But really I think what got Gino into trouble was that she did such extreme fraud, then kept lying about it, then she decided to blow things up by suing everybody.
These are tough arguments to make because of small N. It’s so rare that universities discipline faculty for research misconduct.
K: There is something very strange in the background of this case. This is one of those situations where I think I understand the politics just barely enough to know that I don’t understand the politics. I cannot believe that Harvard would railroad a superstar photogenic *WOMAN* tenured professor, based on what might be written on the Data Colada blog, shaking in fear and terror of its influence. That doesn’t make sense. There’s some material in the case about going quietly. Maybe Harvard made Gino essentially a plea deal, she considered that deal too harsh, but rather than regard it as an opening offer and trying negotiate a better deal for herself (don’t business professors teach about this?), she decided she’d fight tooth and nail. And so Harvard nailed her to the wall. Just speculating.
Based on similar cases, professors caught in this situation are generally offered 1-2 years of pay to just resign and save the university the trouble (and embarassment) of revoking tenure and firing them. So, yes, I think this was a case of a rejected “plea deal” leading to a more punitive outcome.
It’s not just universities who act this way. In my experience, it is standard corporate practice for higher-level employees. The employer gives up a year or two of salary, and gets a resignation and an NDA in return. The employee doesn’t need a reciprocal NDA, since the employer wants silence anyway.
Of course, this is often career death for the employee. If the employee is senior enough to get a year or two of salary, they’re likely senior enough to have a reputation in the industry.
As a result of these dynamics, white-collar plaintiffs are either desperate–with no better alternatives–or very very unrealistic people.
Ziggy:
Yes, it’s my impression that universities are not worse than corporate settings. Universities are just more open, so we hear about what’s happening there. I’m sure there are a zillion corporate VPs who lie and cheat much more than Laurence Tribe or the Columbia University administration; we just don’t usually hear about it.
Surprised a constable came to enforce the subpoena for a civil suit, given that the only time I’ve had to call the cops they said “it’s a civil matter” to avoid having to show up and do their job.
A few comments.
Apparently, in massachusetts, sending constable is the norm. Who knew?
I think the accusations in both cases qualify as misconduct. This lays out my comparison: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/subpoena-taught-me-hbs-way-andrew-king-iodhf/
Andy (not Andrew) King
I may be missing some details that are crucial here, but I have read some things about both cases at different times when they were mentioned here on this blog for instance. In line with my earlier comment here, I am under the impression they are two very different cases, so I am a bit surprised to read this comment here.
Many things may have to do with 1 the definitions, and 2 the interpretations. These things are sometimes mixed up, or seen differently, which makes things hard sometimes. See my earlier comment for example where the term “research misconduct” is used more specifically to refer to fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism, and in the other quote “misconduct” is used to refer to other research misbehavior as well (although even then the “big three” of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism are explictly mentioned as being something different).
Anyway, it seems HBS sees “misconduct” as the big three: fabrication, falsification, plagiarism. A dictionary I checked mentions the following definitions of “falsifiy” I think are relevant here:
1 to state untruthfully, misrepresent
2a to make false by altering or adding to
2b to counterfeit, forge
I think when it comes to “falsification”, the Gino case possibly involves actions beloning to definition 2a (and now perhaps 2b as well, see the datacolada post mentioned here). The Serafeim case however seems to me to largely only involve definition 1 of “falsify”:” to state untruthfully or misrepresent.
Now, if this is correct, it shows again why it might be important to keep things separate as much as possible. The “misrepresenting” and “state untruthfully” can be applied to many other research behaviors, like several of the so-called “Questionable research practices” in my view. For instance, HARK-ing (hypothesizing after the results are known) might be viewed as “misrepresenting”. If HARK-ing would be seen as an instance of “falsification” then I don’t think that would be very useful in judging research behavior or trying to solve problematic issues with sub-optimal or fraudulent research misbehavior.
A further check might be that in the Gino case, there might not be the option for a “correction” or altered re-submission to the journal to deal with the problems pointed out. If I am understanding correctly, the Serafeim case does involve this option or proposal, which may point to a crucial difference between the cases.
To keep things simple, at least at first, I would view fabrication as coming up with non-existent data like the data colada blog mentions with the data file that changed from N=98 to N=101. I would view falsification as changing data, for instance change a number from 3 to 5 in order to achieve more desirable results. If such things did not happen in the Serafeim case, I would view that as a possibly crucial difference between the cases.
I heard this argument on my LinkedIn page, and so I have given it some thought.
I think the cases are more comparable than people think. Some of the accusations are nearly identical, data and results misreporting are both research misconduct, and intent seems inferable.
1) One of the accusations against Gino is about PROCEDURE: specifically misrepresenting the method used on the analysis. From HBS’s final report:
“Dr. Gino falsified and or fabricated the results by removing or altering parts of the descriptions of study procedures from drafts of the manuscript submitted for publication, thus misrepresenting the study procedures in the final publication. The original procedure descriptions (subsequently removed or altered by Professor Gino) pointed to a significant flaw in the execution of the data collection for study one which called into question the validity of the study results.”
This is very similar to my accusation that Eccles, Ioannou, and Serafeim misrepresented their matching method to make their results seem more valid.
2) I see no difference in quality between changing the values of a variable to get a statistical estimate you want and simply misreporting the estimate.
The only reason we can discuss that in Gino’s case is because SHE POSTED HER DATA.
3) Intent: Changing data feels like it conveys intent, but Gino has argued that people change data all the time, so one must know the reason.
Eccles, Ioannou, and Serafeim did not correct their “misreport” in a timely manner, and in one case they still have not corrected it in the publishing journal. I believe that provides evidence of intent or recklessness.
Also, let’s not forget the “explanations” we are asked to believe to infer that EIS “misreported” their results and methods.
a) They meant to say that a finding was “not” significant and failed to type “not”.
b) The meant to remove part of the description of their method, but forgot (and edited in later drafts).
c) The conducted 200 interviews and evaluated ~5000 datapoints to backdate their data a decade – all without leaving any trace.
I know that Eccles, Ioannou, and Serafeim are influential, well-connected scholars. But they should not get special treatment.
Thank you for the comment!
I can’t say much more than I have I think. I have tried to keep things as simple as possible, also for my understanding, by attempting to make a clear distinction. But now I only have more questions. Questions I can’t answer easily, especially with respect to the Serafeim case as I simply don’t understand any of the statistics and analyses involved. It’s hard for me to judge the possible seriousness of misrepresenting the “matching method”. And it’s hard for me to judge the seriousness of the leaving out of the “NOT” in the reporting of the analysis (e.g. did the table 7 contain the correct values, if so, does that make a difference in judging the situation?). Still, perhaps it all points to the importance in this all of 1 definitions and 2 interpretations. “Misrepresenting” the matching method might be seen by some (many?) as being different from “altering” or “adding” things.
Anyway, as a side note:
As a result of your comment, I searched some more and then I came across some information about the procedure accusation agains Gino. I found a document “confidential memorandum” witch mentions that: “Allegation 4a relates to the study procedure, not the data; it is therefore different from the other allegations in the complaint.” (p. 5). I don’t know how big a part of the case against Gino this is, but it seems a small part of it.
I don’t necessarily see the problem with what I’ve read with this misrepresentation of the procedure in Gino’s case. From the “confidential memorandum”:
“Professor Gino claims that the sequence described in the IRB application and early drafts could not possibly reflect how the study was actually conducted because the flaw was so serious and obvious that her lab never would have conducted the study that way. But the seriousness and obviousness of the error evidently did not stop Professor Gino from describing the study that way in the IRB application and early drafts—and maintaining that description when she first attempted to allay the concerns of her co-author.”
What I want to know now is what the sequence of events was during the actual research, was signing the taxform performed before the reporting of number of math problems correctly solved as would be in line with being able to conclude something from that. I don’t necessarily care that much whether there is a difference between the description of the study in the IRB application and the final paper. I care how the options compare to what actually occured, and I don’t have that information.
You should cover the The Cover-Up File, this bombshell was just blogged about by Data Colada on Friday. Forensic analysts at Harvard have determined that Gino created a fake data file that’s the “real data” to try to pin blame on the fake data file on an RA. https://datacolada.org/136
Dan:
Yes, I linked to that. See PPS above. I don’t think I have anything to add to that aspect of the story beyond what Uri wrote there.
I imagine Gino hanging down from an open air duct opening, gently lowering herself down to her computer, wiping a drop of sweat from her eyebrow just before inserting the USB-stick into the laptop and re-writing history (or should we say herstory).
Maybe she’s a rebel talent.
Maybe she’s an over-enthusiastic academic.
Maybe she’s being framed.
Or maybe she has just a bit too much of certain personality characteristics that may facilitate certain thoughts and actions that may be detrimental to being a proper scientist.
Who knows anymore in present-day academia….
And being foiled by audit logs. Note the latest from the court case:
Magistrate Judge Jessica D. Hedges: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. As agreed to during the 7/7/26 discovery conference, the parties shall do the following with respect to the issues raised in Docket Nos. 237 and 238 by July 17, 2026:1. Within two business days of receipt from the forensic analyst, Plaintiff shall produce all bash/Terminal logs and/or history files created, copied, archived, or otherwise saved at any location on the 2023 Laptop and for any configured shell.2. Within two business days of receipt from the forensic analyst, Plaintiff shall produce all browser history and download logs for September 23, 2023. Plaintiff may withhold highly sensitive information, such as information related to medical conditions, Plaintiff’s children, or private family or personal issues. Plaintiff shall provide a log of any withheld information, stating a specific basis for withholding.3. Within two business days of receipt from the forensic analyst, Plaintiff shall produce all.mov,.heic,.jpg,.bmp, or.png files created, modified, accessed, or added to the 2023 Laptop on September 23, 2023. Plaintiff may withhold highly sensitive materials, including images or videos documenting medical conditions, Plaintiff’s children, or Plaintiff’s family and personal life (in photos or videos unrelated to the issues raised in this lawsuit). Plaintiff shall provide a log of any withheld information, stating a specific basis for withholding. 4. Within two business days of receipt from the forensic analyst, Plaintiff shall produce all Google Drive logs for September 23, 2023.5. The parties may ask the forensic analyst to provide written responses to the following questions, but may not use the forensic analysts answers to these questions as substantive opinion evidence:a.) In reaching your conclusion concerning post-July 1, 2023 USB connections, what artifacts, if any, did you look for on the device that you did not find or otherwise were unable to examine?b.) Did you identify any forensic indicia consistent with log clearing on the device? Describe any indicia you identified.6. The parties shall file a joint status report stating their positions on reopening the Plaintiff’s deposition to address information or materials produced in response to today’s ruling. (EZG) (Entered: 07/07/2026)
I always find it hard to understand the phrasing of lawyers and texts in things like court documents. I also don’t easily understand the specific procedures and what they exactly might make clear or provide evidence for or against. But I guess Gino has to hand over a lot more information relating to the laptop, possibly especially what happened after the investigative party maded copies of the laptop (I thought that was what happened). If this is (largely) correct, and in view of your use of the word “foiled”, I assume this might bring some more damning information for her to light.
Hi Andrew, I am a lawyer (and regular blog reader), glad to at last see a topic I can meaningfully weigh in on.
According to reporting on this case, it is in federal court. That means that the form of the deposition is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30, while the subpoena compelling attendance at the deposition is governed by Rule 45.
Rule 30 states plainly that “A party may, by oral questions, depose any person … The [person being deposed]’s attendance may be compelled by subpoena.”
You asked what protections non-parties have against overly burdensome compelled attendance at depositions. First, Rule 30(d)(1) states that the deposition must be limited to one 7-hour day unless the court allows more time on a case-by-case basis. Second, Rule 30(d)(3)(a) gives the person being compelled the right to file a motion to end the deposition “on the ground that it is being conducted in bad faith or in a manner that unreasonably annoys, embarrasses, or oppresses the [witness].”
Rule 45, governing subpoenas, also contains protections for recipients of subpoenas. Rule 45(d), entitled “protecting a person subject to a subpoena” explains that the party/attorney issuing the subpoena “must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena.” The person subject to the subpoena also has the right to file a motion to quash the subpoena (meaning, a motion for the court to rule that they do not have to follow the subpoena).
These rules are in place because it’s necessary for an effective court system to be able to summon witnesses to court even if they do not want to testify. For civil cases, which take years to resolve and often do not go to trial, it is important for each side to be able to find out in advance what witnesses will testify to if there is a trial.
I hope this answers your questions!
Hannah:
Thanks for explaining. That makes sense. Being deposed for a single day could be annoying but it’s not too much of an imposition.