In Cooley v. Superior Court (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1039, the plaintiff in a civil suit served a subpoena on the district attorney for records produced by other entities regarding the incident underlying the suit, for which the defendant was also being criminally prosecuted. The material was sought by means of a business records subpoena, which requires an affidavit from the custodian of records stating, among other things, that the records were prepared contemporaneously and in the ordinary course of business. (Evid. Code, 1560, 1561.) Because the district attorney's office did not "prepare or generate" any of the documents sought, it could not attest that they were "prepared in the ordinary course of business at or near the time of the event," "'state the "identity" or "mode of preparation" of the records'" or "'show that "the sources of information and method and time of preparation" of the records indicate their trustworthiness. '" (Cooley, at p. 1045.) As a result, the district attorney was not a custodian of the records sought. (Ibid.)