I consider a subpoena to be a court order, even though it's issued by a court clerk, or by you, an officer of the court. Failure to comply with a subpoena is contempt of court, isn't it? At any rate, you can't get the documents until and unless you file a lawsuit, and relevance is always the test. If I were on the other side, I would ask for the documents to be sealed, and might even ask for an order redacting them, so that only documents germane to the subject matter were produced.
What you think is relevant isn't the test, is it? It's what the Court thinks is relevant. And whether it may lead to relevant information isn't good enough either, is it? It's whether it reasonably may lead to relevant information.
As for me, I am tired of playing hardball in divorce cases. It's expensive, stressful, and usually counter-productive for the parties. The lawyers get all the money and then when the client is tapped out, miraculously the case settles. |
