Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-2_06-mc-00042/USCOURTS-arwd-2_06-mc-00042-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FORT SMITH DIVISION

WILLIAM CAVITT PLAINTIFF

V. No. 2:06-MC-42

BOB WILLS, et al. DEFENDANTS

O R D E R

Now on this 21st day of December 2006, there comes on for

consideration the Honorable James Marschewski’s Motion to

Quash Subpoena (Doc. 3) and Plaintiff’s Response (Doc. 5).

The Court, being well and sufficiently advised in the

premises, finds that the Motion to Quash (Doc. 3) should be

and hereby is GRANTED.

Plaintiff seeks to depose Judge Marschewski regarding a

contempt hearing over which Judge Marschewski presided in

Stilley v. Fort Smith School Dist., 2006 WL 2627537. To allow

Plaintiff to question Judge Marschewski about the reasons

behind any decision he made as a judicial officer is

inappropriate. The overwhelming authority concludes that a

judge may not be compelled to testify concerning the mental

processes used in formulating official judgments or the

reasons that motivated him in the performance of his official

duties. See United States v. Roebuck, 271 F.Supp.2d 712 (D.

V.I. 2003) citing United States v. Morgan, 313 U.S. 409

(1941); Fayerweather v. Ritch, 195 U.S. 276 (1904); Grant v.

Shalala, 989 F.2d 1332 (3d Cir. 1993); Robinson v.

Case 2:06-mc-00042-RTD Document 6 Filed 12/21/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 70 F.3d 34 (5 Cir. 1995); th

United States v. Edwards, 39 F.Supp.2d 692 (M.D. La. 1999).

See also, Jones v. Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. Of Conn., 266 F. Supp.

91 (D. Conn. 1967)(the rules protecting judges from civil suit

are also significant where discovery of matters occurring in

the course of a judge’s conduct in the course of his official

duties is sought from him for use in a suit to which he is not

a party.) Accordingly, the Motion to Quash Subpoena (Doc. 3)

is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of December 2006. 

/s/ Robert T. Dawson

Honorable Robert T. Dawson

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-mc-00042-RTD Document 6 Filed 12/21/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>