Motion to Quash Subpoena

STATE OF MICHIGAN

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF KENT

___________

ANNALISE MCMENAMIN,

                        PLAINTIFF,                                                    FILE: 03-09173-DC

VS.                                                                                          HON. STEVEN PESTKA

LARY HOLLAND (Pro Se),                                                   MOTION TO QUASH

                        DEFENDANT.                                                SUBPOENA

-------------------------------------------------/

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

NOW COMES, Defendant, Lary Holland Pro Se, with his Motion to Quash Subpoena and hereby states as follows:

1.                  In clear view of the court, at Defendant’s First Motion to Disqualify Judge Steven M. Pestka and the Kent County Friend of the Court, not one minute after the hearing was concluded, Plaintiff presented a Subpoena – Order to Appear and/or Produce to Defendant. (See Attached Exhibit A, herein referenced as “Subpoena” )

2.                  Defendant, Lary Holland, is an obvious party to case at hand, whereas Attorney Walsh aims to take advantage of Defendant because he is “unlicensed to practice law” and from what could only appear to Defendant as aims to obliterate Defendant with continual procedural anomalies and unjustified actions that Defendant has to deal with, as to preserve Defendant’s rights that have been tromped on by this court and attorney Walsh.

3.                  MCR 2.305(A)(1) permits a party to issue a subpoena against a non-party compelling that person’s attendance at a deposition.

4.                  MCR 2.305(B) may command productions of documents or other tangible things, but the following rules apply:

(1)   The subpoena must be served at least 14 days before the time for production…

5.                  Plaintiff compels production with his subpoena within 5 days, much less than what is allowable by any twisted interpretation of the court rules.

6.                  It is important that MCR 2.305(C) applies to any Subpoena issued under that rule, because it is effectively commanding the person to appear. This however, only applies to non parties in the litigation.

7.                  MCR 2.306(B)(1) A party desiring to take the deposition of a person on oral examination must give reasonable notice in writing to every other party to the action.

8.                  MCR 2.306(B)(4) The notice to a party deponent may be accompanied by a request for the production of documents and tangible things at the taking of the deposition. MCR 2.310 applies to the request.

9.                  MCR 2.310(C)(2) states that: The party on whom the request is served must serve a written response within 28 days after service of the request, except that a defendant may serve a response within 42 days after being served with the summons and complaint.

10.              A Subpoena Deuces Tecum is a subpoena that commands the person to whom it is directed to produce designated books, papers, documents, or tangible things, is authorized under subsection (A)(2). An explicit limitation on such a subpoena is that the materials must be relevant to the subject matter of the action and within the scope of discovery under MCR 2.302(B) As noted a subpoena Deuces Tecum may be issued against party deponents as well as non-party deponents.

11.              The function of a subpoena deuces Tecum issued under subsection (A)(2) is significantly circumscribed. It does not permit the party issuing the subpoena to inspect or copy the materials required to be produced under the terms of the subpoena without the permission of the person producing the materials.

12.              It is obvious that not only has a reasonable request not been made by Attorney Walsh, but he does not comport with any of the provisions of MCR 2.310 for a Request of Production and this is a bad faith legal action by Attorney Walsh.

13.              The standard that Attorney Walsh should be held to for his actions are within the scope of sanctions as he clearly should understand the Michigan Court Rules, and should further stop abusing his powers as an officer of the court in signing such an outright frivolous document and presenting to the Defendant in front of the Judge.

WHEREFORE, Defendant prays that this Honorable Court provide the following relief:

A.     Quash the Subpoena immediately as it flies in the face of what is allowable by competent Court Officers, this Court, and by the Michigan Court Rules.

B.     Sanction Attorney Walsh for his frivolous Subpoena action.

Dated: 7/30/2005                                                                     By: __________________

                                                                                                        Lary Holland

                                                                                            (Defendant)

                                                                                            5180 Cedar Lake Rd.

                                                                                            Oscoda, MI 48750