Court Opinion

ID: 9443141
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 19:12:16.748341+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:23.261096
License: Public Domain

MARTIN, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the decision that the orders denying appellant’s motion to quash the subpcena ¡ducés tecum and adjudging appellant in contempt should be affirmed. But, in reaching this conclusion, I think it is not essential that the court should resolve all the technical differences developed in the respective opinions of my respected colleagues. In the context of the case, carefully developed by Judge McAllister, it seems to me to be clear that the Civil Procedure Rules (54 and 62) pertaining to judgments have no applicability, and that appellant accordingly was not entitled to an automatic stay of ten days after entry in the district court of the order denying his motion to quash the subpoena before his compulsion to testify and to produce the records demanded. A contrary construction would, in my judgment, be inconsistent with the expressed purpose of the rule makers that the rules should be construed to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action.