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.
A Montana 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 a Montana court. This affidavit is specifically used to request the court to quash or invalidate a subpoena duces tecum that the affine believes to be unreasonable and oppressive. Keywords: Montana, Affidavit, Motion to Quash, Subpoena Ducks Cecum, Unreasonable, Oppressive. In the Montana legal system, there might be different types or variations of this particular affidavit. Some possible variations could include: 1. "Montana Affidavit in Support of Motion to Quash Subpoena Ducks Cecum based on Privilege Claim": This affidavit variant would focus on the grounds that the recipient of the subpoena has a valid privilege claim, such as attorney-client privilege or doctor-patient confidentiality, which prevents them from producing the requested documents. 2. "Montana Affidavit in Support of Motion to Quash Subpoena Ducks Cecum based on Lack of Relevance": In this variant, the affine would argue that the subpoenaed documents are not relevant or material to the case at hand, rendering the subpoena unreasonable and oppressive. The affine might provide specific details regarding how the requested documents do not pertain to the issues being litigated. 3. "Montana Affidavit in Support of Motion to Quash Subpoena Ducks Cecum based on Burden of Production": This affidavit would highlight the undue burden placed on the recipient of the subpoena in terms of time, effort, and resources required to comply with the request. The affine might explain why the burden outweighs any potential benefit or relevance of the requested documents. 4. "Montana Affidavit in Support of Motion to Quash Subpoena Ducks Cecum based on Over broad Scope": This variant focuses on the argument that the subpoena seeks an excessively broad range of documents that goes beyond what is necessary for the case. The affine would explain how the over broad scope makes the subpoena unreasonable and oppressive and provide specific examples of irrelevant or unnecessary requests. It is important to note that the availability of these different variations may vary depending on the specific rules and procedures of the Montana court where the affidavit is filed. Legal counsel should always be consulted to determine the most appropriate type of affidavit to use in a particular case.
