Utah Courts

View more posts from this author
4 thoughts on “Rules of Civil Procedure
  1. Andrew McCullough

    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!

  2. Bob Wilde

    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.

  3. Paul Simmons

    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.

  4. Sam McVey

    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.