A motion to quash asks the judge for an order setting aside or nullifying an action, such as "quashing" service of a summons.
This form is a generic example that may be referred to when preparing such a form for your particular state. It is for illustrative purposes only. Local laws should be consulted to determine any specific requirements for such a form in a particular jurisdiction.
A Hawaii Affidavit in Support of Motion to Quash Subpoena Ducks Cecum on the Grounds that Subpoena is Unreasonable and Oppressive is a legal document filed with a Hawaiian court challenging a subpoena duces tecum (a request for the production of documents) on the basis that it is unfair, burdensome, or oppressive. This type of affidavit is typically filed by the party on whom the subpoena was served, seeking to have the court invalidate or modify the subpoena. The affidavit explains the reasons why the subpoena should be quashed, focusing on its unreasonableness and oppressive nature. When drafting the affidavit, it is essential to use specific keywords and legal language to ensure its relevance and effectiveness. Some relevant keywords include: 1. "Affidavit": This document requires a sworn statement, under penalty of perjury, affirming the truthfulness of the facts presented. 2. "Motion to Quash": This refers to the legal action taken by the party to invalidate the subpoena. 3. "Subpoena Ducks Cecum": This term identifies the type of subpoena being challenged, which requests the production of documents and other tangible evidence. 4. "Unreasonable": The affidavit must argue that the subpoena is beyond what is reasonable or practical in terms of scope, time limitations, or the amount of information requested. 5. "Oppressive": The document should emphasize that the subpoena places an undue burden on the party, possibly due to excessive demands, costs, or invasion of privacy. 6. "Grounds": This term refers to the legal basis for challenging the subpoena, such as violating the rules of civil procedure, constitutional rights, or established case law in Hawaii. 7. "Hawaiian Court": It is crucial to specify the jurisdiction in which the affidavit is being submitted, which in this case is Hawaii. In summary, a Hawaii Affidavit in Support of Motion to Quash Subpoena Ducks Cecum on the Grounds that Subpoena is Unreasonable and Oppressive is a legal document challenging the validity of a burdensome subpoena requesting document production in a Hawaiian court. Using specific keywords and legal language helps ensure its relevance and adherence to legal requirements.A Hawaii Affidavit in Support of Motion to Quash Subpoena Ducks Cecum on the Grounds that Subpoena is Unreasonable and Oppressive is a legal document filed with a Hawaiian court challenging a subpoena duces tecum (a request for the production of documents) on the basis that it is unfair, burdensome, or oppressive. This type of affidavit is typically filed by the party on whom the subpoena was served, seeking to have the court invalidate or modify the subpoena. The affidavit explains the reasons why the subpoena should be quashed, focusing on its unreasonableness and oppressive nature. When drafting the affidavit, it is essential to use specific keywords and legal language to ensure its relevance and effectiveness. Some relevant keywords include: 1. "Affidavit": This document requires a sworn statement, under penalty of perjury, affirming the truthfulness of the facts presented. 2. "Motion to Quash": This refers to the legal action taken by the party to invalidate the subpoena. 3. "Subpoena Ducks Cecum": This term identifies the type of subpoena being challenged, which requests the production of documents and other tangible evidence. 4. "Unreasonable": The affidavit must argue that the subpoena is beyond what is reasonable or practical in terms of scope, time limitations, or the amount of information requested. 5. "Oppressive": The document should emphasize that the subpoena places an undue burden on the party, possibly due to excessive demands, costs, or invasion of privacy. 6. "Grounds": This term refers to the legal basis for challenging the subpoena, such as violating the rules of civil procedure, constitutional rights, or established case law in Hawaii. 7. "Hawaiian Court": It is crucial to specify the jurisdiction in which the affidavit is being submitted, which in this case is Hawaii. In summary, a Hawaii Affidavit in Support of Motion to Quash Subpoena Ducks Cecum on the Grounds that Subpoena is Unreasonable and Oppressive is a legal document challenging the validity of a burdensome subpoena requesting document production in a Hawaiian court. Using specific keywords and legal language helps ensure its relevance and adherence to legal requirements.
