Motion to Quash Discovery in Michigan

Background

“A motion to quash is the accepted manner of attacking defects of service of process. It may be ground for abating or quashing a writ that is not in the proper form; that it is issued in the wrong county; that it was not served in a proper place; that the copy served varies materially from the original, etc.” (Coleman v. Bolton (1970) 24 Mich. App. 547, 557.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

Court Rule No. 18, § 4 (1945), provides:

“A defendant may, within the time for appearing, file a motion to quash the service of the process, on the ground that such service was invalid. Said motion may be supported by affidavits. Every denial of a motion to quash the service of process shall be without prejudice, whereupon the defendant shall have the right to appear generally and plead, and upon general appeal assign error on the trial court's denial of said motion.”

(Reaume Silloway v. Tetzlaff (1946) 315 Mich. 95, 101.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

A reviewing court applies the abuse of discretion standard in motion to quash cases. (Moyer v. Lott (1978) 86 Mich. App. 186, 188 [holding that “the trial court did not abuse its discretion in considering the motion to quash service; see also, Manufacturers Construction Co. v. Covenant Investment Co. (1972) 43 Mich. App. 123.)

The Court’s Decision

“Rule No 18, § 4 (1945), provides for filing, within the time for appearing, of a motion to quash the service of process and that every denial thereof ‘shall be without prejudice, whereupon the defendant shall have the right to appear generally and plead.’ This contemplates that after denial of the motion to quash defendant shall have time within which to appear generally and plead.” (Shank v. Castle (1959) 357 Mich. 290, 293.)

“In Fitzpatrick v. Secretary of State, 176 Mich App 615, 617-618; 440 NW2d 45 (1989), [the Appeals] Court reversed the trial court's order that denied the defendant's motion to quash the deposition of the Secretary of State on the grounds that the Secretary of State lacked personal knowledge of the relevant facts and that the information sought could be obtained by other means. More recently, in Hamed v. Wayne Co, 271 Mich App 106, 109-110; 719 NW2d 612 (2006), [the Appeals] Court reversed the trial court's order that denied the defendants’ motion to quash the depositions of the Wayne County Executive and the Wayne County Sheriff on the ground that the plaintiff had made no showing that either official possessed relevant information that could not be obtained through other methods.” (Alberto v. Toyota Motor Corp. (2010) 289 Mich. App. 328, 337.)