A motion to quash is a legal request filed by a party to nullify or set aside a specific legal action or order, such as a subpoena, summons, or service of process. The party filing the motion generally believes that the action or order is defective, invalid, or unjust. If the court grants the motion to quash, the legal action or order in question is deemed void or unenforceable. This can result in the dismissal of the case, exclusion of evidence, or the need to reissue a corrected subpoena, summons, or service of process. (Motion to Quash, Black's Law Dictionary, 11th ed. 2019, available at Westlaw.)
“The burden to establish that a subpoena duces tecum is unreasonable or oppressive is on the party who seeks to have it quashed.” (See Helge v. Druke (1983) 136 Ariz. 434…) (continue reading)
Although relevance is typically construed liberally (see Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Super. Ct. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 161, 169), the standard is more stringent when a party is attempting to discover documents which are constitutionally protected by the right to privacy. (Lantz v. Super. Ct. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1839, 1854-1855.) Explore California's Motion to Quash Subpoena Rules
“When a defendant challenges that jurisdiction by bringing a motion to quash, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the existence of jurisdiction by proving, inter alia, the facts requisite to an effective service.” (Dill v. Berquist Const. Co., Inc. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426.) Explore California's Motion to Quash Service of Summons Rules
“Once the writ of execution has issued, however, the judgment debtor must show why the writ should be quashed. One reason which the court could consider in exercising its equitable discretion would, of course, be that the debtor has satisfied the obligation.” Explore California's Motion to Quash Writ of Execution Rules
“Rule 45 (b) provides that the trial court may quash a request for subpoenas if such request is shown to be unreasonable.” (See Garrow v. Garrow (1963) 152 Colo. 480…) (continue reading)
Given that a Motion to Quash is a type of protective order, it is properly broguht under Connecticut Practice Book § 13-5, which provides, in pertinent part: “Upon motion by a party from whom discovery is sought, and for good cause shown, the judicial authority may make any order which justice requires…” Explore Connecticut's Motion to Quash Discovery Rules
It is well settled that pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 45(c)(3)(B)(I), “The Court must quash or modify a subpoena which requires disclosure of a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information.” (See Liu v. Zhang, C.A. No: K15C-11-005 RBY, at *4 (Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 21, 2016).) (continue reading)
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(c) generally authorizes a party to seek protection from a discovery request made to a non-party in an action where the items sought belong to the party. Explore Florida's Motion to Quash Subpoena Rules
“[A] defendant may not impeach the validity of the summons with a simple denial of service, but must present ‘clear and convincing evidence’ to corroborate his denial.” (Telf Corp. v. Gomez (1996) 671 So.2d 818, 819 quoting…) Explore Florida's Motion to Quash Service of Summons Rules
“OCGA § 24-13-23 (b) (1) gives the trial court discretion upon timely motion to quash or modify such a subpoena if it is unreasonable and oppressive. This standard is tested by the peculiar facts arising from the subpoena itself and other proper sources.” (Joiner-Carosi, supra, 357 Ga. App. at 391 citing Hickey v. RREF BB SBL Acquisitions (2016) 336 Ga. App. 411, 414 (2).) (continue reading)
“A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it.” (See Wright v. Mount Auburn Daycare/Preschool (2005) 831 N.E.2d 158…) (continue reading)
“Although the Rules of Civil Procedure aim for the broadest scope in discovery, they also contemplate occasions where restrictions on the flow of information may be necessary. (Urrea, id., citing Mass.R.Civ.P. 26, Mass. Practice.) Under Mass.R.Civ.P. 26(c), therefore, a showing of ‘good cause’ can lead to the issuance of an order which…” (continue reading)
“A motion to quash is the accepted manner of attacking defects of service of process. It may be ground for abating or quashing a writ that is not in the proper form; that it is issued in the wrong county; that it was not served in a proper place; that the copy served varies materially from the original, etc.” (Coleman v. Bolton (1970) 24 Mich. App. 547…) (continue reading)
“On a timely motion, the court shall quash or modify a subpoena if it subjects a person to undue burden.” (See Minn. R. Civ. P. 45.03(c)(1); Sumstad v. Wilson, Nos. A08-0019, A08-0020, at *7 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2009).) (continue reading)
Under Rule 26.02(c) the court on motion made promptly may quash or modify the subpoena if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive.” (See State ex Rel. St. Louis County v. Block, (1981) 622 S.W.2d 367…) (continue reading)
“A trial court may modify or quash a subpoena if the subpoenaed person demonstrates the existence of certain grounds, including that the subpoena is otherwise unreasonable or oppressive.” (See In re A.H. (2016) 250 N.C. App. 546…) (continue reading)
It is also well settled that “rule 17(c)(2), N.D.R.Crim.P., provides, on motion made promptly, the court may quash or modify the subpoena if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive.” (See State v. Groce (2018) 907 N.W.2d 761…) (continue reading)
R. 1:9-2 permits the court “on motion made promptly [to] quash or modify the subpoena. if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive and. may condition denial of the motion upon the advancement by the person in whose behalf the subpoena or notice is issued of the reasonable cost of producing the objects subpoenaed.” Explore New Jersey's Motion to Quash Discovery Rules
A party may move to quash service of summons on the grounds that the court does not have jurisdiction over the defendant. (Civ. Prac. Law & Rules, § 3211(a)(8).) Explore New York's Motion to Quash Service of Summons Rules
A person from whom discovery is sought may file an application for protective order or to quash or modify a subpoena pursuant to the rules or statutes of New York. (Civ. Prac. Law & Rules, § 3119(e).) Explore New York's Motion to Quash Subpoena Rules
“Civ.R. 45 also provides protection to nonparties, by letting them file motions to quash or modify subpoenas based on matters like: privilege, undue burden, failure to allow adequate response time, or…” Explore Ohio's Motion to Quash Discovery Rules
It is well settled that “the party or person from whom a deposition is sought may, with good cause to be shown, request a protective order to protect a party or person from annoyance, harassment, embarrassment, oppression or undue delay, burden or expense.” (See Crest Infiniti v. Swinton (2007) 174 P.3d 996…) (continue reading)
“A court has discretion to quash a subpoena, issued in the midst of a trial or otherwise, when compliance would work a hardship on the witness or would otherwise be oppressive.” (See Benchmark v. Hipolito (1999) 161 Or. App. 598…) (continue reading)
However, “[the] Court's standard of review of the trial court's order granting a motion to quash plaintiff's appeal is limited to whether the trial court committed an error of law, an abuse of discretion, or a violation of constitutional rights.” (Ray v. Brookville Area School Dist (2011) 19 A.3d 29…) (continue reading)
“Rule 45(c)(3)(A) of the R.I. Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure allow this Court to quash a subpoena to the extent it requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter.” (See In Re Zak, 03-3992 (2004), No. P.M. 03-3992, at *1 (R.I. Super. Jan. 8, 2004).) (continue reading)
Rule 177a applies to motions to quash or to modify a subpoena. Furthermore, Rule 177a provides for such motions if the subpoena is "unreasonable and oppressive." (Tex. R. Civ. P. 177a.) In determining whether a deposition notice or subpoena duces tecum is unreasonable and oppressive, the following factors are relevant… Explore Texas's Motion to Quash Service of Subpoena Rules
“Any party opposing a subpoena may bring a motion to quash or modify the subpoena for various reasons, including if the subpoena requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter and no exception or waiver applies." (See CR 45(c)(3)(A)(iii); Dempsey v. Spokane Wash. Hosp. Co. (2017) 406 P.3d 1162…) (continue reading)
It is well settled that “upon a showing of good cause, sec. 804.01(3) authorizes a court to protect a party from discovery that would result in annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” (See Vincent Vincent, Inc. v. Spacek (1981) 102 Wis. 2d 266…) (continue reading)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.