# In Re Motion to Quash Bar Counsel Subpoena

> Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · October 27, 2009 · 982 A.2d 330

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9706962

## Case

- **Full name:** In Re MOTION TO QUASH BAR COUNSEL SUBPOENA
- **Court:** Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
- **Decided:** October 27, 2009
- **Citations:** 982 A.2d 330; 2009 ME 104; 2009 Me. LEXIS 107; 2009 WL 3430231
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Alexander
- **Judges:** Clifford, Alexander, Levy, Mead, Gorman
- **Cited by:** 6 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9706962

## Opinion text

ALEXANDER, J.,
dissenting.
[¶ 23] I respectfully dissent. At this preliminary stage of the proceeding, Bar Counsel may seek information that “appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” See M.R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The opposition to the subpoena did not demonstrate without doubt that compliance with the subpoena could not lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Accordingly, the Single Justice appropriately denied the motion to quash. Furthermore, the single justice appropriately made only limited findings, because the evidence is yet to be developed, and detailed findings might suggest prejudgment of issues that are not yet ready for fact-finding.
*339 [¶24] I would affirm the decision of the Single Justice, and I would not comment about facts and inferences from facts before discovery is completed and the facts can be addressed in an appropriate forum.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9706962. Public record. Not legal advice.