On August 31, 2016 a
Party Discovery
was filed
involving a dispute between
Adams, Stephanie Marie,
Attorney General Of Texas,
and
Adams, Kevin James,
for Divorce with Children
in the District Court of Denton County.
Preview
CAUSE NO. 16-07015-158 u;
_
«g;
:2 ‘flm :3
IN THE
MARRIAGE
MATTER OF THE
OF
§
§
§
IN‘THEfifiSTgCTQOURT
73 15
“c”
I7r
STEPHANIE MARIE ADAMS AND § 158T D: ‘LALJDISIRICT
KEVIN JAMES ADAMS ”gr;
§ \ 3;-‘
§ \ a
AND IN THE INTEREST OF K.E.A. § DENTogI CétfibITfiTEXAS
AND R.A.A., MINOR CHILDREN § 3 :
ORDER ON OBJECTION S TO SUBPOENA. MOTION TO OUASH SUBPOENA
DUCES TECUM. AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
On this day, the Court heard the Objections to Subpoena, Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces
Tecum, and Motion for Protective Order filed by the Town of Little Elm (“Movant”) in response to a
Subpoena for the testimony of Detective Daniel Phelps from Petitioner. Movant appeared through
counsel as did Petitioner. Afier considering the pleadings and arguments of counsel, the Court finds
and rules as follows:
Motion to Quash
GRANTED
s
WW (
Motion for Protec
GRANTE
er is:
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED,
MW ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the subpoena issued
on behalf of Petitioner and served on Movant on June 9, 2017, is quashed, and that Movant is
protected from fither response to suc
.rvy
Document Filed Date
June 20, 2017
Case Filing Date
August 31, 2016
Category
Divorce with Children
Status
Active: Post-Judgment Action(s) Pending
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
CAUSE NO. 16-07015-158 u; _ «g; :2 ‘flm :3 IN THE MARRIAGE MATTER OF THE OF § § § IN‘THEfifiSTgCTQOURT 73 15 “c” I7r STEPHANIE MARIE ADAMS AND § 158T D: ‘LALJDISIRICT KEVIN JAMES ADAMS ”gr; § \ 3;-‘ § \ a AND IN THE INTEREST OF K.E.A. § DENTogI CétfibITfiTEXAS AND R.A.A., MINOR CHILDREN § 3 : ORDER ON OBJECTION S TO SUBPOENA. MOTION TO OUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM. AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: On this day, the Court heard the Objections to Subpoena, Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum, and Motion for Protective Order filed by the Town of Little Elm (“Movant”) in response to a Subpoena for the testimony of Detective Daniel Phelps from Petitioner. Movant appeared through counsel as did Petitioner. Afier considering the pleadings and arguments of counsel, the Court finds and rules as follows: Motion to Quash GRANTED s WW ( Motion for Protec GRANTE er is: IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED, MW ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the subpoena issued on behalf of Petitioner and served on Movant on June 9, 2017, is quashed, and that Movant is protected from fither response to suc .rvy