Preview
CAUSE NO. 16-07015-158
IN THE MATTER OF THE IN THE DISTRICT COURT
MARRIAGE OF
STEPHANIE MARIE ADAMS AND 158™ JUDICIAL DISTRICT
KEVIN JAMES ADAMS
AND IN THE INTEREST OF K.E.A. DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS
AND R.A.A., MINOR CHILDREN
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND
OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
THE TOWN OF LITTLE ELM, TEXAS (“Town”), is a non-party to this case. The Town
hereby requests that the Court enter a protective order and quash the subpoena of the Custodian of
Records for the Little Elm Police Department, who was served with the subpoena on behalf of
Stephanie Marie Adams, Petitioner herein.'! The subpoena requires the Custodian of Records for the
Little Elm Police Department to produce certain documents in court on June 20, 2017, at 9:00 a.m.
Because the subpoena seeks the disclosure of information subject to well established privileges, the
Town seeks a protective order and lodges objections to the subpoena in part. In support thereof the
Town respectfully shows the Court the following:
I
Subpoen:
By and through the subpoena, served upon Jennifer Lewis, the Custodian of Records for the
Little Elm Police Department, on or about June 9, 2017, Petitioner seeks to require Ms. Lewis to
' The Town notes that amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure no longer explicitly reference the term
“quashing.” Cf Tex.R.Civ.P. 176.6(d)-(f) and former Tex.R.Civ.P. 177a (repealed 1999). However, some parties
and courts continue to use the term to request relief from oppressive discovery subpoenas. See, e.g., In re Rabb, 293
S.W.3d 865, 866 (Tex. App.—Dallas, 2009, orig. proceeding) (persons subject to trial subpoena filed motion to
quash). Because the term is still understood to refer to judicial relief of the duty to respond to a discovery request,
the Town adopts that terminology herein,
Motion for Protective Order and Objections to Subpoena Duces Tecum Page | of 5
produce the following documents or tangible things: “all documents (including certified and signed
copies of the report, records, investigation, correspondence, witness statements, and/or findings)
related to Stephanie Marie Adams, including photographs and video.” See Exhibit A.
I.
General Objection:
The Town objects to the subpoena issued by Petitioner because Petitioner failed to adhere to
the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. A subpoena cannot be used for discovery in a manner or time
other than as provided by the rules of discovery. Tex. R. Civ. P. 176.3(b). The Texas Rules of Civil
Procedure and Evidence are in place precisely for the protection of the parties and non-parties and to
provide proper avenues for the exchange of information. For these reasons, the Town objects to
Petitioner’s subpoena.
Hl.
Specific Objections and Bases to Quash Subpoena and Issue a Protective Order:
A. The Subpoena Must be Quashed Because Requiring the Town to
produce the records is Unreasonable and Unduly Burdensome.
Producing the records is unreasonable and would impose an undue burden on the Town.
The party causing a subpoena to be issued must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing an
undue burden or expense on the person served. TEX. R. Civ. P. 176.3(b). Petitioner’s request is
too broad to be effective and does not show good cause. Solomon v. State, 467 S.W.2d 422, 424-
25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971) (motion for production of grand jury minutes, documents, statements,
tests and examination of evidence in rape prosecution properly overruled as too broad to be
effective and did not show good cause); see also Sonderup v. State, 418 S.W.2d 807, 808 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1967) (pretrial discovery motion requesting production of “all statements, documents
and evidence now in the possession of police officers or the District Attorney of Nueces County”
too broad to be effective and fails to reflect good cause). Moreover, Petitioner’s request for
Motion for Protective Order and Objections to Subpoena Duces Tecum Page 2 of 5
records is overly broad and vague, causing an undue burden and unnecessary expense to the
Town to respond to the subpoena. See Donald v. State, 453 S.W.2d 825, 826 (Tex. Crim. App.
1969) (prosecution for theft by false pretext; respondent’s subpoena for bank records to stop
payment and as to financial losses too vague and indefinite).
The Town objects to this request in that it is unduly burdensome. Petitioner has made no
effort to avoid imposing an undue burden on the Town. For these reasons, the subpoena should
be quashed.
B. The Subpoena must be Quashed Because the Records are Subject to a Pending
Criminal Investigation.
The subpoena issued by Petitioner requests records that are subject to a pending criminal
investigation. The Town objects because the information requested is a matter that is under a
lawful and proper police investigation. Public disclosure of all matters therein is akin to a court
order requesting the interference and disruption of an ongoing police investigation and could
hamper said investigation and result in weakening a case that is subject to prosecution.
Iv.
Praye
WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Town requests that this Court:
1 Enter a protective order finding that the Town does not have a duty to respond to the
subpoena because: (a) Petitioner has made no effort to avoid imposing an undue
burden on the Town; or (b) the request impermissibly hampers a pending criminal
investigation; or
In the alternative, limit the extent or subject matter of the discovery to matters
relevant to an issue before this Court and authorize only the inspection of such
documents.
Motion for Protective Order and Objections to Subpoena Duces Tecum Page 3 of 5
The Town also requests such other relief at law and equity to which it may show itself
entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
ZO Foe
Ashley L. White
State Bar Number 24079647
L. Brian Narvaez
State Bar Number 24046509
BROWN & HOFMEISTER, L.L.P.
740 E. Campbell Road, Suite 800
Richardson, Texas 75081
Phone: (214) 747-6100
Fax: (214) 747-6111
ATTORNEY FOR THE ITTLE ELM POLICE
DEPARTMENT
Motion for Protective Order and Objections to Subpoena Duces Tecum Page 4 of 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this motion was served on the Petitioner
through her attorney of record, Lauren Johnson via e-Filing software on the 19th day of June,
2017.
/S/ L. BRIAN NARCEZ
L. Brian Narvaez
Motion for Protective Order and Objections to Subpoena Duces Tecum Page 5 of5
SUBPOENA
Issued in the Name of the State of Texas
CAUSE NO. 16-07015-158
IN THE MATTER OF THE § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
MARRIAGE OF
STEPHANIE MARIE ADAMS AND § 158" JUDICIAL DISTRICT
KEVIN JAMES ADAMS
AND IN THE INTEREST OF K.E. § DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS
AND R.A.A., MINOR CHILDRE §
You, Custodian of Records for the Little Elm Police Department, located at: 88 E. Eldorado
Parkway, Little Elm, Texas 75068 are hereby commanded to appear before the 158th District Court,
Denton County Courthouse, located at 1450 East McKinney Street, 3" Floor, Denton, Texas 76209-
4524 on June 20, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. {o attend and give testimony at a hearing relating to the case entitled
"In the Matter of the Marriage of Stephanie Marie Adams and Kevin James Adams and in the Interest of
K.E.A, and R.A.A,, Minor Children" and filed under Cause No. 16-07015-158 in the 158th Judicial
District Court of Denton County, Texas, and remain at that place from day to day until discharged by the
Court or Lauren Johnson.
You are further commanded to produce, at the time and place specified above, the following
documents or tangible things: all documents (including certified and signed copics of the report,
record, investigation, correspondence, witness statements, and/or findings) related to Stephanie
Marie Adams, including photographs and video,
This subpoena is issued at the instance of Stephanie Marie Adams, Applicant, in the above-
referenced case, by and through her attorney of record, Lauren Johnson.
FAILURE OF ANY PERSON WITHOUT ADEQUATE EXCUSE TO OBEY A SUBPOENA
SERVED ON THAT PERSON MAY BE DEEMED A CONTEMPT OF THE COURT FROM WHICH
THE SUBPOENA IS ISSUED OR A DISTRICT COURT IN THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE
SUBPOENA IS SERVED, AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY FINE OR CONFINEMENT, OR BOTH.
This subpoena is issued on June 9, 2017 by:
TEXAS RIO GRANDE LEGAL AID INC
1250 W. Mockingbird Lane, Suite 450
Dallas, TX 75247
Tel: (469) 225-0129
Fax: (214) 951-9393
By: 4/Lauren Johnson
Lauren Johnson
State Bar No. 24101971
Ijohnsont@trla.org
Attorney for Petitioner
SUBPOENA CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR THE LITTLE ELM POLICE DEPARTMENT PageI
EXHIBIT
A’
Preview
CAUSE NO. 16-07015-158 IN THE MATTER OF THE IN THE DISTRICT COURT MARRIAGE OF STEPHANIE MARIE ADAMS AND 158™ JUDICIAL DISTRICT KEVIN JAMES ADAMS AND IN THE INTEREST OF K.E.A. DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS AND R.A.A., MINOR CHILDREN MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: THE TOWN OF LITTLE ELM, TEXAS (“Town”), is a non-party to this case. The Town hereby requests that the Court enter a protective order and quash the subpoena of the Custodian of Records for the Little Elm Police Department, who was served with the subpoena on behalf of Stephanie Marie Adams, Petitioner herein.'! The subpoena requires the Custodian of Records for the Little Elm Police Department to produce certain documents in court on June 20, 2017, at 9:00 a.m. Because the subpoena seeks the disclosure of information subject to well established privileges, the Town seeks a protective order and lodges objections to the subpoena in part. In support thereof the Town respectfully shows the Court the following: I Subpoen: By and through the subpoena, served upon Jennifer Lewis, the Custodian of Records for the Little Elm Police Department, on or about June 9, 2017, Petitioner seeks to require Ms. Lewis to ' The Town notes that amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure no longer explicitly reference the term “quashing.” Cf Tex.R.Civ.P. 176.6(d)-(f) and former Tex.R.Civ.P. 177a (repealed 1999). However, some parties and courts continue to use the term to request relief from oppressive discovery subpoenas. See, e.g., In re Rabb, 293 S.W.3d 865, 866 (Tex. App.—Dallas, 2009, orig. proceeding) (persons subject to trial subpoena filed motion to quash). Because the term is still understood to refer to judicial relief of the duty to respond to a discovery request, the Town adopts that terminology herein, Motion for Protective Order and Objections to Subpoena Duces Tecum Page | of 5 produce the following documents or tangible things: “all documents (including certified and signed copies of the report, records, investigation, correspondence, witness statements, and/or findings) related to Stephanie Marie Adams, including photographs and video.” See Exhibit A. I. General Objection: The Town objects to the subpoena issued by Petitioner because Petitioner failed to adhere to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. A subpoena cannot be used for discovery in a manner or time other than as provided by the rules of discovery. Tex. R. Civ. P. 176.3(b). The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and Evidence are in place precisely for the protection of the parties and non-parties and to provide proper avenues for the exchange of information. For these reasons, the Town objects to Petitioner’s subpoena. Hl. Specific Objections and Bases to Quash Subpoena and Issue a Protective Order: A. The Subpoena Must be Quashed Because Requiring the Town to produce the records is Unreasonable and Unduly Burdensome. Producing the records is unreasonable and would impose an undue burden on the Town. The party causing a subpoena to be issued must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing an undue burden or expense on the person served. TEX. R. Civ. P. 176.3(b). Petitioner’s request is too broad to be effective and does not show good cause. Solomon v. State, 467 S.W.2d 422, 424- 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971) (motion for production of grand jury minutes, documents, statements, tests and examination of evidence in rape prosecution properly overruled as too broad to be effective and did not show good cause); see also Sonderup v. State, 418 S.W.2d 807, 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967) (pretrial discovery motion requesting production of “all statements, documents and evidence now in the possession of police officers or the District Attorney of Nueces County” too broad to be effective and fails to reflect good cause). Moreover, Petitioner’s request for Motion for Protective Order and Objections to Subpoena Duces Tecum Page 2 of 5 records is overly broad and vague, causing an undue burden and unnecessary expense to the Town to respond to the subpoena. See Donald v. State, 453 S.W.2d 825, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969) (prosecution for theft by false pretext; respondent’s subpoena for bank records to stop payment and as to financial losses too vague and indefinite). The Town objects to this request in that it is unduly burdensome. Petitioner has made no effort to avoid imposing an undue burden on the Town. For these reasons, the subpoena should be quashed. B. The Subpoena must be Quashed Because the Records are Subject to a Pending Criminal Investigation. The subpoena issued by Petitioner requests records that are subject to a pending criminal investigation. The Town objects because the information requested is a matter that is under a lawful and proper police investigation. Public disclosure of all matters therein is akin to a court order requesting the interference and disruption of an ongoing police investigation and could hamper said investigation and result in weakening a case that is subject to prosecution. Iv. Praye WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Town requests that this Court: 1 Enter a protective order finding that the Town does not have a duty to respond to the subpoena because: (a) Petitioner has made no effort to avoid imposing an undue burden on the Town; or (b) the request impermissibly hampers a pending criminal investigation; or In the alternative, limit the extent or subject matter of the discovery to matters relevant to an issue before this Court and authorize only the inspection of such documents. Motion for Protective Order and Objections to Subpoena Duces Tecum Page 3 of 5 The Town also requests such other relief at law and equity to which it may show itself entitled. Respectfully submitted, ZO Foe Ashley L. White State Bar Number 24079647 L. Brian Narvaez State Bar Number 24046509 BROWN & HOFMEISTER, L.L.P. 740 E. Campbell Road, Suite 800 Richardson, Texas 75081 Phone: (214) 747-6100 Fax: (214) 747-6111 ATTORNEY FOR THE ITTLE ELM POLICE DEPARTMENT Motion for Protective Order and Objections to Subpoena Duces Tecum Page 4 of 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this motion was served on the Petitioner through her attorney of record, Lauren Johnson via e-Filing software on the 19th day of June, 2017. /S/ L. BRIAN NARCEZ L. Brian Narvaez Motion for Protective Order and Objections to Subpoena Duces Tecum Page 5 of5 SUBPOENA Issued in the Name of the State of Texas CAUSE NO. 16-07015-158 IN THE MATTER OF THE § IN THE DISTRICT COURT MARRIAGE OF STEPHANIE MARIE ADAMS AND § 158" JUDICIAL DISTRICT KEVIN JAMES ADAMS AND IN THE INTEREST OF K.E. § DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS AND R.A.A., MINOR CHILDRE § You, Custodian of Records for the Little Elm Police Department, located at: 88 E. Eldorado Parkway, Little Elm, Texas 75068 are hereby commanded to appear before the 158th District Court, Denton County Courthouse, located at 1450 East McKinney Street, 3" Floor, Denton, Texas 76209- 4524 on June 20, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. {o attend and give testimony at a hearing relating to the case entitled "In the Matter of the Marriage of Stephanie Marie Adams and Kevin James Adams and in the Interest of K.E.A, and R.A.A,, Minor Children" and filed under Cause No. 16-07015-158 in the 158th Judicial District Court of Denton County, Texas, and remain at that place from day to day until discharged by the Court or Lauren Johnson. You are further commanded to produce, at the time and place specified above, the following documents or tangible things: all documents (including certified and signed copics of the report, record, investigation, correspondence, witness statements, and/or findings) related to Stephanie Marie Adams, including photographs and video, This subpoena is issued at the instance of Stephanie Marie Adams, Applicant, in the above- referenced case, by and through her attorney of record, Lauren Johnson. FAILURE OF ANY PERSON WITHOUT ADEQUATE EXCUSE TO OBEY A SUBPOENA SERVED ON THAT PERSON MAY BE DEEMED A CONTEMPT OF THE COURT FROM WHICH THE SUBPOENA IS ISSUED OR A DISTRICT COURT IN THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE SUBPOENA IS SERVED, AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY FINE OR CONFINEMENT, OR BOTH. This subpoena is issued on June 9, 2017 by: TEXAS RIO GRANDE LEGAL AID INC 1250 W. Mockingbird Lane, Suite 450 Dallas, TX 75247 Tel: (469) 225-0129 Fax: (214) 951-9393 By: 4/Lauren Johnson Lauren Johnson State Bar No. 24101971 Ijohnsont@trla.org Attorney for Petitioner SUBPOENA CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR THE LITTLE ELM POLICE DEPARTMENT PageI EXHIBIT A’