Subpoenas duces tecum; financial records of nonparty, report.
Summary
HB2565 creates a new Virginia statute governing subpoenas duces tecum in civil cases when the subpoena seeks either privileged attorney-client records or the financial records of a nonparty account holder. The bill allows the attorney holding privileged records, or the nonparty whose financial records are sought, to file a motion to quash or modify the subpoena. In practical terms, it gives nonparties a clearer procedural path to challenge or narrow civil discovery requests that reach sensitive financial information.
The bill also addresses the cost of producing financial records. It prohibits commercial businesses that provide credit histories or credit reports, financial institutions, issuers, and money transmitters from conditioning compliance with a valid subpoena on payment of fees, while still allowing them to charge reasonable amounts limited to actual costs for searching, accessing, duplicating, or supplying the records. The act further directs the Supreme Court of Virginia to conform Rules 4:1 and 4:9A to the new law and asks the Boyd-Graves Conference to study whether similar motion-to-quash rights should extend to other types of nonparty records.
Impact
HB2565 amends Title 8.01 of the Code of Virginia by adding § 8.01-420.9, creating a specific statutory mechanism for nonparties and privilege holders to challenge subpoenas for sensitive records in civil litigation. It also constrains how certain financial and credit-record custodians may charge for subpoena compliance, while preserving their ability to recover actual production costs. The bill requires conforming changes to the Supreme Court of Virginia’s discovery rules and initiates a study that could lead to broader discovery protections for nonparties in the future.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial in the legislature. It moved through subcommittee, committee, both chambers, and conference with overwhelmingly favorable votes, including unanimous or near-unanimous committee action and 97-0 and 40-0 floor votes. The conference report was also adopted overwhelmingly by both the House and Senate, indicating strong bipartisan agreement on the need for clearer protections and procedures in civil subpoena practice.
Contention
The main policy issue reflected in the bill is the balance between civil discovery and privacy/protection of sensitive records. Support appears to have centered on giving nonparties and privilege holders a direct way to seek quashing or modification of subpoenas and on limiting subpoena-related fees to actual costs. Any residual concern likely relates to whether these protections should be expanded beyond financial records to other categories of nonparty records, which is why the bill directs the Boyd-Graves Conference to study that broader question. The recorded votes do not show significant opposition, suggesting any disagreement was limited or resolved through amendment and conference.