EXAMPLE: Alina gets into an accident when her rear wheels stop for no reason, causing the car to skid into a highway divider. In her lawsuit against the car manufacturer, Alina uses the discovery procedure to obtain memos and test run results that the manufacturer used in designing the car. Without discovery, Alina may not be able to acquire that information.
How-To: Respond to a Motion to Quash
Background: | You propounded discovery |
Problem: | A party has moved the Court to halt your discovery |
Solution: | You ask the Court to deny that party's motion to quash |
I. Definitions
II. Legal Citations
III. Samples
# | Comments | ₧ | |
---|---|---|---|
01 | ![]() | TBD case. Pro Se Filing. USFLMD. Non-Party. Defendant Employee. Lack Standing/Merit. Bifurcated | ![]() |
02 | ![]() | - Withdrawn. 2007. Attorney Filing. USNYWD. Confidentiality Stipulation. | ![]() |
03 | ![]() | Partially Granted. 2007. Attorney Filing. USNYWD. Boilerplate Objections ("embarass", "burden", etc.) | ![]() |
04 | ![]() | ✓✓ Quash Denied! 2007. Attorney Filing. USNYWD. DNA. Confession. | ![]() |
05 | ![]() | ¿ Unknown Result ? 2006. Attorney Filing. DOAH. Invalid Reasons. Civil Rights Case. | ![]() |
06 | ![]() | ✓✓ Quash Denied! 2006. Attorney Filing. DOAH. Boilerplate objections. Civil Rights Case. | ![]() |
07 | ![]() | ¿ Unknown Result ? 2011. DOAH. Deposition. | ![]() |
08 | ![]() | X Quash Granted. 2011. Attorney Filing. DOAH. Deposition of Agency's In-House Counsel. | ![]() |
09 | ![]() | ✓✓ Quash Denied! 2018. TBD case. Pro Se Filing. "Apex Doctrine" | ![]() |
IV. Templates
# | Link | Comments | ₧ |
---|---|---|---|
1 | ![]() | DOAH | Replace all placeholder tags with real data (eg "[plfName]" becomes "John Doe"). | ![]() |
2 | ![]() | USFLMD | Replace all placeholder tags with real data (eg "[plfName]" becomes "John Doe"). | ![]() |
V. Application
- Important Note: The Judge has "broad discretion" for handling Motions to Quash.
"We also find that the provision for protective orders in the Washington Rules requires, in itself, no heightened First Amendment scrutiny. To be sure, Rule 26(c) confers broad discretion on the trial court to decide when a protective order is appropriate and what degree of protection is required. The Legislature of the State of Washington, following the example of the Congress in its approval of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, has determined that such discretion is necessary, and we find no reason to disagree."
"...The litigant can compel the third party to be deposed and to produce tangible evidence at the deposition by serving the third party with a subpoena pursuant to Rule 45. Rule 45(b)(1) authorizes a trial court to quash or modify a subpoena of tangible evidence "if it is unreasonable and oppressive.""
VI. Quick Commentary
- Note: Defendants file Motions to Quash on an almost routine basis
- Note: Defendants usually accompany Motions to Quash with Motions for Protective Order
- Good News: Your opponent will likely use plenty of boilerplate objections
- point these out
- combat them by saying the objections are hollow (if indeed they are)
- Pro Se Tip: Supply the Court with facts/information that supports the relevance/need of the disputed discovery items
- consider attaching an Affidavit
- consider attaching corroborating Exhibits
- Please download as many sample documents as you'd like
- Contact TBD for more free samples
- Also, feel free to use the templates (see Part IV - above) to help draft your 'Response to Defendant's Motion to Quash'
- Save the final version as a PDF file.
- File it in court (or at DOAH)
VII. Bibliography
VIII. Conclusion
Hopefully, the samples and templates listed on this page can guide you along.
...POINTS & THINGS...
Please get the justice you deserve.
Sincerely,
www.TextBookDiscrimination.com