Case Title: Whitehall ex rel. Fennessy v. Bambi Motel, Inc.

Citation: 1999-Ohio-395

Docket Number: 19990333

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1999-03-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
CITY OF WHITEHALL EX REL. FENNESSY, CITY ATTORNEY, APPELLEE, v. BAMBI 
MOTEL, INC. ET AL., APPELLANTS. 
[Cite as Whitehall ex rel. Fennessy v. Bambi Motel, Inc. (1999), ___ Ohio St.3d 
___.] 
Motions to quash subpoenas denied. 
(No. 99-333 — Submitted March 18, 1999 — Decided March 19, 1999.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 98AP-384. 
ON MOTIONS TO QUASH SUBPOENAS. 
__________________ 
 
Charles D. Underwood, Whitehall City Attorney, Charles W. McGowan and 
Peter F.J. Beagle, Assistant City Attorneys, for appellee. 
 
E. Scott Shaw, Whitehall Special Counsel, for former Whitehall City 
Attorney Dennis J. Fennessy. 
 
Daniel J. Igoe; Whiteside & Whiteside and Alba L. Whiteside, for appellants. 
__________________ 
 
This cause is pending before the court as a discretionary appeal and claimed 
appeal of right.  Upon consideration of the motions to quash by the city of 
Whitehall and former Whitehall City Attorney Dennis J. Fennessy, it is ordered by 
the court that the motions to quash subpoenas be, and hereby are, denied. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., concur. 
 
RESNICK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur separately. 
__________________ 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concurring.  Although I agree with the 
majority’s ultimate disposition of the plaintiff city of Whitehall’s and former 
Whitehall City Attorney Dennis J. Fennessy’s respective motions to quash, I write 
separately because I believe that the court should sua sponte strike the motions to 
quash as improperly filed in this court, as opposed to denying the motions. 
 
2
 
Both Fennessy and the plaintiff moved to quash the subpoenas pursuant to 
Civ.R. 45(C)(3).  Civ.R. 45(C)(3) states: 
 
“On timely motion, the court from which the subpoena was issued shall 
quash or modify the subpoena * * * if the subpoena does any of the following * * 
*.” (Emphasis added.) 
 
The subpoenas in this case were issued by common pleas and municipal 
courts.  Therefore, pursuant to the plain language of Civ.R. 45(C)(3), this court has 
no authority to quash the subpoenas because it did not issue them.  Accordingly, I 
believe it is more proper to sua sponte strike the motions to quash as improperly 
filed in this court, as opposed to denying them. 
 
RESNICK, J., concurs in the foregoing concurring opinion.