Sample Memorandum Language
The following may be included in the memorandum to a judge accompanying a motion to quash a subpoena as permitted by Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 45.
State the entity you represent and identify the data requested by subpoena. Identify the classification of the data and the statute making the data not public.
Example language:I represent the Department of Administration. The Commissioner of Administration received a subpoena duces tecum requiring that he produce data documenting sick leave used by each department employee due to the H1N1 virus. The data are classified as private under Minn. Stat. § 13.43, subd. 4. Thus, the Commissioner cannot produce the data in response to the subpoena without violating state law. I submit this memorandum and ask that the subpoena be quashed or an order be issued by the Court authorizing the Commissioner to release the data.
Statement of Facts and Procedural History
Provide any additional detail about the facts and the basis for the subpoena.
Explain to the Court the options of quashing the subpoena or issuing a court order. Include the balancing test in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 6.
Example language: Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 45.03(c), the Court shall quash a subpoena if it requires “disclosure of protected matter.” As the subpoenaed data are classified as private under Minn. Stat. § 13.43, the data are “protected matter.”
If the Court chooses not to quash the subpoena, it must perform an in camera review of the data to determine whether the data are releasable and conduct the balancing test required by Minn. Stat. § 13.03, subd. 6. See Montgomery Ward & Co. Inc. v. County of Hennepin, 450 N.W.2d 299, 306 (Minn. 1990); Erickson v. MacArthur, 414 N.W.2d 406 (Minn. 1987); State v. Renneke, 563N.W.2d 335 (Minn. App. 1997).
If the Court determines that the data are releasable and the interests of those seeking the data outweigh the interests of keeping the data private pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 13.03, subd. 6, the Court should issue a protective order limiting further dissemination of the data, as it deems appropriate. See also Erickson at 409-10.