Response to Motion to Quash Subpoenas (Doc 19)

What leaps out most to me about Karl's response is the contrast of how he addresses each point in their motion.  

Karl's prowess seems so much more on point than Marty's, whose responses read as op-ed pieces or just repetitive denials without any basis.

Judgement for the Dissolution of Marriage

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF XXXXXXXXX COUNTY, XXXXXXXXX COUNTY DEPARTMENT, DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION

RESPONSE TO XXXXXXXXX MOTION TO QUASH OR ALTERNATIVELY LIMIT SUBPOENA REQUESTS AND FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER SUPERVISING DISCOVERY

NOW COMES the Respondent, XXXXXXXXX, by and through her attorney, XXXXXXXXX, LLC, and in response to XXXXXXXXX's Motion to Quash or Alternatively Limit Subpoena Requests and for a Protective Order Supervising Discovery, XXXXXXXXX states as follows:

XXXXXXXXX is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of the Motion and therefore denies the allegations and demands strict proof thereof.

XXXXXXXXX moves to strike Paragraph 2 of the Motion as it states legal and factual conclusions. In the alternative, XXXXXXXXX is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of the Motion and therefore denies the allegations and demands strict proof thereof.

XXXXXXXXX moves to strike Paragraph 3 of the Motion as it states factual conclusions. In the alternative, XXXXXXXXX is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of the Motion and therefore denies the allegations and demands strict proof thereof.

XXXXXXXXX admits that at one point she did issue a subpoena for business records from 1/1/12 to the present, but is without sufficient knowledge as to whether that constitutes "all" of XXXXXXXXX's business records. XXXXXXXXX states AFFIRMATIVELY that XXXXXXXXX had repeatedly evaded service of subpoena in question and now admits the subpoena as an exhibit to her Motion. XXXXXXXXX's actions constitute discovery abuse and she now comes to this Court with unclean hands concerning the impropriety of the subpoena. And again, XXXXXXXXX moves to strike the remainder of Paragraph 4 of the Motion as it fails to state specific facts and instead states factual and legal conclusions. In the alternative, XXXXXXXXX is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of the Motion and therefore denies the allegations and demands strict proof thereof.

Paragraph 5 of the Motion largely quotes the content of the June 2, 2014 subpoena and requires no response. To the extent it does not, it is denied. Further XXXXXXXXX states AFFIRMATIVELY that the subpoena goes on to set a deadline of June 18, 2014 for XXXXXXXXX's response. XXXXXXXXX's actions constitute discovery abuse and she now comes to this Court with unclean hands concerning the impropriety of the subpoena.

Paragraph 6 of the Motion largely quotes the content of the June 27, 2014 subpoena and requires no response.

XXXXXXXXX moves to strike Paragraph 7 of the Motion as it states legal and factual conclusions. In the alternative, XXXXXXXXX denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of the Motion. Yet again, XXXXXXXXX states AFFIRMATIVELY that XXXXXXXXX had repeatedly evaded service of June 2, 2014 subpoena, but now admits the subpoena as an exhibit to her Motion. XXXXXXXXX's actions constitute discovery abuse and she now comes to this Court with unclean hands concerning the subpoena.

XXXXXXXXX admits that a phone call originated from her home, but XXXXXXXXX denies the insinuation that it was XXXXXXXXX who made the call. Further, XXXXXXXXX states AFFIRMATIVELY that is was her mother that made the call. XXXXXXXXX denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of the Motion.

XXXXXXXXX moves to strike Paragraph 9 of the Motion as it states legal and factual conclusions. In the alternative, XXXXXXXXX is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of the Motion and therefore denies the allegations and demands strict proof thereof.

XXXXXXXXX moves to strike Paragraph 10 of the Motion as it states legal and factual conclusions. In the alternative, XXXXXXXXX is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 10 of the Motion and therefore denies the allegations and demands strict proof thereof.

XXXXXXXXX admits that Exhibit D appears to be an affidavit from XXXXXXXXX, but denies the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 11 of the Motion.

Paragraph 12 of the Motion purports to quote Supreme Court Rule 201(c)(1) and (2) and requires no response. To the extent it does not, it is denied.

Paragraph 13 of the Motion purports to quote or paraphrase the cited statute and requires no response. To the extent it does not, it is denied.

Paragraph 14 of the Motion purports to quote or paraphrase the cited case law and requires no response. To the extent it does not, it is denied. XXXXXXXXX states AFFIRMATIVELY that her attempts at discovery are relevant to the matter at hand as XXXXXXXXX Supreme Court Rule 201(c) provides: "Full Disclosure Required. Except as provided in these rules, a party may obtain by discovery full disclosure regarding any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking disclosure..." (emphasis added) Further, Skonberg v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp., holds, "Great latitude is allowed in the scope of discovery, and discovery thus includes not only what is admissible at trial, but also that which may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." 576 N.E.2d 28 at 33 (1st Dist. 1991). And finally, there is the holding from Maxwell v. Hobart Corporation, which states, "Pretrial discovery presupposes a range of relevance and materiality much broader than that of admissibility of evidence at trial." 576 N.E.2d 268 at 270 (1st Dist. 1991).

Paragraph 15 of the Motion purports to quote or paraphrase the cited case law and requires no response. XXXXXXXXX states AFFIRMATIVELY that the cited case's "law" is not "well-established" as it is from 1903 and, "Appellate court decisions issues prior to 1935 had no binding authority." Bryson v. News America Publications, Inc., 672 N.E.2d 1207, 1217 (1996).

Insofar as Paragraph 16 of the Motion purports to quote or paraphrase the cited case law, it requires no response. However, XXXXXXXXX denies the use of the purported "established 'test'" which is alleged. The cited cases dealing with State actions and thus relate to Constitutional protections of privacy and takings, not civil actions between private parties. Further, XXXXXXXXX states AFFIRMATIVELY that XXXXXXXXX evaded service of the original subpoena, which she now flaunts as an exhibit to her Motion. The original subpoena requested a number of documents from XXXXXXXXX over a span of many months. However, the most recent subpoena in question was narrowly tailored to extract key months and is hardly oppressive or excessive and irrelevant. Once again, XXXXXXXXX has routinely engaged in discovery abuse and now comes to this Court with unclean hands to quash the subpoena of which she had constructive service. In the alternative, XXXXXXXXX denies XXXXXXXXX's argument all the same.

XXXXXXXXX moves to strike the beginning of Paragraph 17 of the Motion as it merely states a legal conclusion and fails to allege specific facts.

XXXXXXXXX moves to strike the Paragraph 17a) of the Motion as it begins with a legal conclusion. Further, XXXXXXXXX states AFFIRMATIVELY that the cited case deals with the expectation of privacy that citizens enjoy in relation to their government under the Constitution. The cited case law does not apply to squabbles between the plebeians over child support matters and the like. In the alternative, XXXXXXXXX denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 17a) of the Motion.

XXXXXXXXX moves to strike Paragraph 17b) of the Motion as it is a thinly veiled legal conclusion. XXXXXXXXX states AFFIRMATIVELY that XXXXXXXXX evaded service of the original subpoena, which she now flaunts as an exhibit to her Motion. The original subpoena requested a number of documents from XXXXXXXXX over a span of many months. However, the most recent subpoena in question was narrowly tailored to extract key months and is hardly oppressive or excessive and irrelevant. Once again, XXXXXXXXX has routinely engaged in discovery abuse and now comes to this Court with unclean hands to quash the subpoena of which she had constructive service. In the alternative, XXXXXXXXX denies XXXXXXXXX's argument all the same.

XXXXXXXXX moves to strike Paragraph 18 of the Motion as it states legal and factual conclusions along with a prayer for relief. In the alternative, XXXXXXXXX denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 18 of the Motion.

XXXXXXXXX denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 19 of the Motion.

XXXXXXXXX admits that she has engaged in conversations with members of XXXXXXXXX's business community and subpoenaed records, and states AFFIRMATIVELY that the information received from some individuals tying the Petitioner to XXXXXXXXX have led her to seek additional documents directly from XXXXXXXXX. XXXXXXXXX denies the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 20 of the Motion.

XXXXXXXXX denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 21 of the Motion.

XXXXXXXXX moves to strike Paragraph 22 of the Motion as it fails to allege specific facts and merely states a prayer for relief. In the alternative, XXXXXXXXX denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 22 of the Motion.

XXXXXXXXX moves to strike Paragraph 23 of the Motion as it fails to allege specific facts and merely states a prayer for relief. In the alternative, XXXXXXXXX denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 23 of the Motion.

WHEREFORE, Respondent, XXXXXXXXXXX, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court:

Deny the Motion to Quash brought forth by XXXXXXXXX;

Order XXXXXXXXX to comply with the original subpoena issued on June 2, 2014;

Alternatively Order XXXXXXXXX to comply with the subpoena issued on June 27,
2014;

Grant her attorney's fees for defending against XXXXXXXXX's Motion to Quash;

Grant such other relief as deemed just and equitable under the facts and circumstances of this cause.