For what reason demonstrably would a not for profit want to hide this info in the first place? Quasi was respecting a right to anonymity what is the idea that SFWA wouldn't just cooperate? It makes no sense unless they have something to hide.
They don't have one. They
almost tried to make an argument. Jerry will give a response and then SFWA will get a reply to the response.
Presumably, that response will have a bit more teeth, but who knows.
Reading more into the response just shows how little effort was put into the quash. they hardly cite any case law, and when they do it doesn't apply. The response looks like someone who googled "common objections to a third party subpoena".
including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.
That doesn't apply to collection of a
judgement debt.
Moreover, a party seeking discovery from a non-party (like SFWA) bears the burden of providing specific facts that show good cause for the requested information. See Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal. App. 4th 216, 224 (vacating trial court order which compelled nonparty to produced documents responsive to a deposition subpoena).
The case cited does not involve collection of a debt. The facts are he is a
judgement debtor.
As discussed in more detail herein, the Subpoena at issue here presents the same sort of discovery abuse contemplated by the Court of Appeal in Calcor Space Facility
Not in any way, no. Please show
how it relates to a judgement debt.
There are no legitimate reasons for Petitioner to have issued the Subpoena on SFWA. For starters, the Wisconsin Action brought by Patrick S. Tomlinson against Petitioner and other John Does was dismissed back on January 19, 2022. Ex. 4 (Court Docket). Additionally, Petitioner does not have an affirmative lawsuit against Mr. Tomlinson pending. For these reasons, there is no reason for Petitioner to issue a records subpoena much less engage in any discovery here.
Doesn't apply at all here. Again, they must have taken a previous quash and used that as an outline. He's a debtor in California, thats the reason.
To an outside observer, the Subpoena would appear to suggest there is litigation between Mr. Tomlinson and SFWA. There is not. Petitioner has not asserted any claims against Mr. Tomlinson or SFWA that is even peripherally related to Mr. Tomlinson’s participation as a member of SFWA. For this reason, there are no legitimate reasons for Petitioner to obtain the records sought in the Subpoena.
This doesn't make any sense. To the outside observer, Jerry specifically tailored the subpoena to
financial information. Nothing in the subpoena implied that, you misread it because you spent 5 minutes doing a find and replace in Word.
By way of example, what relevance does Mr. Tomlinson’s application to become a member of SFWA have for Petitioner?
It involves his book sales which are relevant to assets and Financials.
What relevance does any payments made by Mr. Tomlinson to SFWA have for Petitioner?
Ok, he's fucking with us now. What relevance do financial payments have to gathering FINANCIAL INFORMATION??? What could possibly be the connection there?
This begs the question how will this information be used and by who? Because Petitioner’s identity continues to be hidden from SFWA and the public, this raises serious concerns about the potential for abuse of the information requested in the Subpoena. It would be a violation of due process for a non-party like SFWA to be compelled to disclose sensitive and confidential information about its members and inner workings to some unknown person – if indeed Petitioner is even a real person.
They try to claim anonymity is an issue. No case law is cited, nor any statutes, not even from another state. Additionally, Jerry Jen filed all the proper paperwork to establish the ownership of the debt to his law firm. This is beyond lazy.
Needless to say, all of the categories of records sought in Petitioner’s Subpoena are overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
The first two points
could be established
. The third cannot. The irony is, they just asserted the first two points, which are the only ones they can argue.
