Posted: June 2, 2008
Rules of Civil Procedure
URCP 045. Subpoena. Amend. Permits a person affected by a subpoena to object.
Utah Court Rules – Published for Comment
The Supreme Court and Judicial Council invite comments about amending these rules. To view the proposed amendment, click on the rule number.
To submit a comment or view the comments of others, click on “Continue Reading.” To submit a comment, scroll down to the “Leave a Reply” section, and type your comment in the “Comment” field. Type your name and email address in the designated fields and click “Post Comment.”
Comments cannot be acknowledged, but all will be considered. Comments are saved to a buffer for review before publication.
Posted: June 2, 2008
URCP 045. Subpoena. Amend. Permits a person affected by a subpoena to object.
Much litigation is affected by the question of standing. Here, it does not appear that “a person affected by” a subpoena is defined. Does anyone and everyone have standing to object? Wow!
Amendment to Rule 45 to allow a non-party to object. This is an important positive change to Rule 45. I recently spent several months contesting a subpoena served on my non-party client in the third district. This change clarifies the rule. The court should adopt this change.
Perhaps the proposed amendment would be better stated if it said “a person affected by a subpoena” rather than a “non-party affected by a subpoena.” What if a party is not the person subject to a subpoena but is a person affected by it? Can he or she object, or is his or her only remedy to file a motion for a protective order? It seems that a needless motion for protective order could be avoided in some cases by allowing the party to serve an objection and let the parties try to work out their differences informally before having to file a motion.
It might be a good idea to define “affected” or use a different term. Does “affected” mean Wal-Mart can file an objection becuase its greeter is subpoenaed to a deposition for the morning and they will have to pay $10 overtime to another greeter? Of course, the objection would be overruled but the parties and the court still have to take the time to deal with it. Never underestimate who will take advantage of the broad term “affected” and attempt to argue minor inconveniences qualify. It seems like a stronger phrase such as “any person who will incur a severe hardship” would be better than “affected.” I’m sure there is a more appropriate term out there we could use.