Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (1060)	2/12/2001 12:09:52 PM
From: Quahog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

I didn't realize that a miscelaneous petition had been filed locally for discovery purposes. THat is the right way to do it. Regarding Federal subpoenas, you probably know that Rule 26 on Discovery was recently amended. Now, a party may only obtain discovery on a matter "that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party" Accordingly, if no complaint has yet been filed, or if suit has been filed but there is really no "claim" against the subpoena target, then Rule 26 should serve as an alternate basis to quash the subpoena. As to trying to serve a subpoena across state lines, I agree completely. In fact, I usually include in my letters that the subpoenaing party may be liable for abuse of process. Quahog P.S. I think that it is great that you have posted a boiler-plate Motion to Quash. Perhaps a thread should be started that contains nothing but useful documents such as draft Motions and Memos for use by members that cannot afford an attorney. Of course, anyone who can afford one should IMO get one and pay for it.