Court Opinion

ID: 9706962
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:56:55.463287+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:26.469132
License: Public Domain

ALEXANDER, J.,
dissenting.
[¶ 23] I respectfully dissent. At this preliminary stage of the proceeding, Bar Counsel may seek information that “appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” See M.R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The opposition to the subpoena did not demonstrate without doubt that compliance with the subpoena could not lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Accordingly, the Single Justice appropriately denied the motion to quash. Furthermore, the single justice appropriately made only limited findings, because the evidence is yet to be developed, and detailed findings might suggest prejudgment of issues that are not yet ready for fact-finding.
*339[¶24] I would affirm the decision of the Single Justice, and I would not comment about facts and inferences from facts before discovery is completed and the facts can be addressed in an appropriate forum.