Free Motion to Quash - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv-00271-JJF

Document 28

Filed 10/11/2007

Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

JOE GANO, Plaintiff, v.

DONALD MARK EHART and SPREAD EAGLE, INC., a Delaware Corporation f/k/a Red Eagle Avionics, Inc., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 07-271 ***

MOTION OF THE FAMILY COURT OF DELAWARE TO QUASH SUBPOENA FOR CONFIDENTIAL RECORDS Comes now, the Family Court of Delaware, by and through undersigned counsel, moving the Court pursuant to Rule 45 (c)(3)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to quash the subpoena issued by the Plaintiff (Exhibit A attached hereto) on October 2, 2007, for the reasons set forth below. 1. A subpoena (Exhibit A) served by the Plaintiff in this action on the

Records Custodian of the Family Court of the State of Delaware directs the production of "...the entire family court [sic] file in the matter of In Re: the marriage of D. Mark Ehart and Mary Beth Ehart, file no. CN97-11486, excluding any documents related to custody." The subpoena specifically demands production of pleadings regarding support; copies of tapes, recordings, and transcripts of hearings and other proceedings; the financial report filed by the parties pursuant to Family Court Rule 16(c); and the pretrial stipulation in the Family Court case.

Case 1:07-cv-00271-JJF

Document 28

Filed 10/11/2007

Page 2 of 5

2.

By statute, 13 Del.C. §1516, hearings and trials conducted by the Family

Court of the State of Delaware are private, and not subject to disclosure to those persons lacking "a direct and legitimate interest in the particular case". 13 Del.C. §1516(a). Subsection (d) of §1516, which bars impoundment or the denial of access to evidence, was enacted solely to guarantee the Family Court litigants access to their own case. Husband, C., v. Wife, C., 320 A.2d. 717, 727 (Del. 1974). The statute does not prevent the Court from sealing the file from access by others. Id. 3. In this instance, the Family Court, in responding to a subpoena, is obliged

to protect the privacy interests of both parties who were before that Court: the husband, who is a defendant in the instant action in this Court; and the wife, who is not before this Court in the present action. The Delaware statute was enacted to protect that right of privacy, consistent with the common law. Id. at 722. 4. Rule 45(c)(3)(A)(iii) grants this Court the authority to quash or modify a

subpoena if it "requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter and no exception or waiver applies". The contents of the Family Court file sought here are rendered privileged and confidential by statute. Neither the husband, a defendant here, nor the wife, who is not a party to this lawsuit, have been shown to have waived the protection of the statute. Disclosure of the broad range of documents sought should thus be denied by this Court. 5. Rule 45(c)(3)(A)(i) also permits this Court to quash or modify a subpoena

if it "fails to allow reasonable time for compliance". Subsection (c)(2)(B) of the Rule contemplates a procedure whereby a person served with a subpoena may serve written objection within fourteen days, or before the time specified for compliance. This

Case 1:07-cv-00271-JJF

Document 28

Filed 10/11/2007

Page 3 of 5

provision sets a benchmark for sufficiency of notice. The instant subpoena was issued on October 2, 2007, a scant ten days before the compliance date of October 12, 2007. The subpoena directs production of the entire file, plus tapes, recordings, and transcripts of proceedings in the Family Court matter. It is unreasonable to expect that such materials could be produced within such a time frame, particularly where the privacy rights of the Family Court litigants (set forth above) are at stake. WHEREFORE, the Family Court of the State of Delaware seeks an Order of this Court quashing the subpoena issued by the plaintiff, for the reasons set forth above.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE STATE OF DELAWARE /s/ Ralph K. Durstein III (#0912) Deputy Attorney General Carvel State Office Building 820 North French Street Wilmington, DE 19801 (302) 577-8510 [email protected] October 11, 2007

Case 1:07-cv-00271-JJF

Document 28

Filed 10/11/2007

Page 4 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

JOE GANO, Plaintiff, v.

DONALD MARK EHART and SPREAD EAGLE, INC., a Delaware Corporation f/k/a Red Eagle Avionics, Inc., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER

No. 07-271 ***

AND NOW, this

day of October, 2007, the Family Court of

Delaware's Motion to Quash Subpoena for Confidential Records is hereby GRANTED.

________________________________ U.S. Magistrate Judge Mary Pat Thynge

Case 1:07-cv-00271-JJF

Document 28

Filed 10/11/2007

Page 5 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

JOE GANO, Plaintiff, v.

DONALD MARK EHART and SPREAD EAGLE, INC., a Delaware Corporation f/k/a Red Eagle Avionics, Inc., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 07-271 ***

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING AND/OR DELIVERY The undersigned certifies that on October 11, 2007, he caused the attached, Motion of the Family Court of Delaware to Quash Subpoena for Confidential Records to be electronically filed with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF which will send notification of such filing to the following: Sophia Siddiqui Fox Rothschild LLP 919 North Market Street, Suite1300 P.O. Box 2323 Wilmington, DE 19899-2323 302-622-4278 Richard H. Cross, Jr Tara M DiRocco Cross & Simon, LLC 913 North Market Street 11th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE STATE OF DELAWARE /s/ Ralph K. Durstein III (#0912) Deputy Attorney General Carvel State Office Building 820 North French Street Wilmington, DE 19801 (302) 577-8510 [email protected]

Case 1:07-cv-00271-JJF

Document 28-2

Filed 10/11/2007

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-00271-JJF

Document 28-2

Filed 10/11/2007

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-00271-JJF

Document 28-2

Filed 10/11/2007

Page 3 of 3