Motion to Quash in Oregon

Background

“A court has discretion to quash a subpoena, issued in the midst of a trial or otherwise, when compliance would work a hardship on the witness or would otherwise be oppressive.” (See Benchmark v. Hipolito (1999) 161 Or. App. 598, 603.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

"A subpoena may also command the person to whom it is directed to produce the books, papers, documents, or tangible things designated therein; but the court, upon motion made promptly and in any event at or before the time specified in the subpoena for compliance therewith, may (1) quash or modify the subpoena if it is unreasonable and oppressive or (2) condition denial of the motion upon the advancement by the person in whose behalf the subpoena is issued of the reasonable cost of producing the books, papers, documents, or tangible things." (See In re the Marriage of Boon (1990) 100 Or. App. 354, 357.)

“The general rule is that only the person subpoenaed can move to quash it. An exception to that rule is if a party's rights would be jeopardized in the absence of a protective order.” (See id.)

“A party claiming a personal right or privilege relating to the document sought by the subpoena has standing to seek to quash.” (See id.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“Whatever discovery may be appropriate is a matter within the discretion of the court.” (See Willamette Landing Apartments - 89, LLC v. Burnett (2016) 280 Or. App. 703, 719.)

“We review the trial court's ruling whether to quash a subpoena for abuse of discretion.” (See Benchmark Properties v. Hipolito (1999) 161 Or App 598, 603, 984 P.2d 927.)

“Although our review of the court's decision is for abuse of discretion, the court's discretion must be exercised in accordance with, and our review must necessarily take into account, the applicable legal principles governing the right to discovery.” (See Baker v. English (1995) 134 Or. App. 43, 46.)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that “the court may quash or modify the subpoena if the subpoena is unreasonable and oppressive or may require that the party who served the subpoena pay the reasonable costs of production.” (See Mouktabis v. M. A. (2021) 315 Or. App. 22, 26.)

It is also well settled that “a subpoena which does not require the recipient to testify will be quashed if the person receiving it moves to do so.” (See Vaughan v. Taylor (1986) 79 Or. App. 359, 363.)