A motion to quash asks the judge for an order setting aside or nullifying an action, such as "quashing" service of a summons.
This form is a generic example that may be referred to when preparing such a form for your particular state. It is for illustrative purposes only. Local laws should be consulted to determine any specific requirements for such a form in a particular jurisdiction.
District of Columbia Affidavit in Support of Motion to Quash Subpoena Ducks Cecum on the Grounds that Subpoena is Unreasonable and Oppressive is a legal document filed in the District of Columbia that seeks to challenge a subpoena duces tecum (documentary evidence) issued in connection with a legal proceeding. This affidavit serves as a formal declaration by a party or witness, detailing the reasons why the subpoena should be quashed or deemed unreasonable and oppressive. The District of Columbia Affidavit in Support of Motion to Quash Subpoena Ducks Cecum on the Grounds that Subpoena is Unreasonable and Oppressive can be categorized into different types based on the specific grounds for challenging the subpoena. Some of these types may include: 1. Unreasonableness: This type of affidavit argues that the subpoena is unreasonable because it imposes an undue burden on the party or witness. It may claim that the requested documents are not relevant to the case, that the time frame for compliance is excessively short, or that the volume of documents requested is too high and would require an unreasonable amount of time, resources, or expenses. 2. Oppressiveness: This type of affidavit asserts that the subpoena is oppressive in nature, meaning that it goes beyond what is necessary or appropriate for the legal proceeding. It might argue that the subpoena is merely a fishing expedition or an attempt to harass, intimidate, or burden the party or witness. 3. Lack of particularity: This type of affidavit challenges the subpoena on the grounds that it lacks the necessary specificity or particularity required to identify the documents sought. It may argue that the subpoena's description of the requested documents is too vague or ambiguous, making it impossible to comply with its terms. 4. Privilege or protection: This type of affidavit asserts that the requested documents are protected by a legal privilege, such as attorney-client privilege or doctor-patient privilege. It may claim that the subpoena infringes upon these privileges and thereby should be quashed. In conclusion, the District of Columbia Affidavit in Support of Motion to Quash Subpoena Ducks Cecum on the Grounds that Subpoena is Unreasonable and Oppressive is a vital legal document used to challenge subpoenas in the District of Columbia court system. By filing this affidavit, parties or witnesses can present their arguments and evidence to convince the court that the subpoena should be invalidated due to its unreasonableness, oppressiveness, lack of particularity, or violation of privileges.
