In the case of The Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. K&K Fire Protection Enterprises, Inc., No. 6060-CV-2021 (C.P. Monroe. Co. Nov. 20, 2024 C. Daniel Higgins, Jr., J.), the court laid out the law pertinent to a Motion to Quash a Subpoena and related Motions for Protective Orders on records sought by subpoenas.
This case arose out of a fire loss. The Plaintiff claimed that inadequate maintenance by the Defendant was the cause of the fire.
The entity that was subpoenaed asserted that the records in question no longer existed.
The court denied that entity’s Motion to Quash the subpoena and for a Protective Order as to those records. The court noted that it expected an affidavit from that entity to confirm, under oath, that the records requested no longer existed.
The subpoena at issue also sought additional other records that the court found were not relevant to the claims against the Defendant. The court found that the subpoena requests for those other records were too broad in scope. As such, the court quashed the subpoena for those records after find that the subpoenas submitted to the entity that was requested to produce the records amounted to unreasonable annoyance embarrassment oppression, burden, or expense.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert. (Jan. 8, 2025).