California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Achterkirchen v. Montiel, A148424 (Cal. App. 2018):
737 [in statutory interpretation, we give words their plain and commonsense meaning].) Rather, it states a judgment creditor "may demand that any judgment debtor produce and permit the party making the demand . . . to inspect and to copy a document" in the manner provided in section 2031.010 et seq. ( 708.030, subd. (a), italics added.) The use of "may" suggests the method is permissive, not mandatory or exclusive. (See, e.g., Neville v. County of Sonoma (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 61, 75 [statutes providing commissioner "may" be removed were permissive and not exclusive means for removing commissioner].
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.