Spreadbury v. Bitterroot Public Library et al

Filing 176

MOTION to Quash by Plaintiff Michael E. Spreadbury. Motions referred to Jeremiah C. Lynch. (APP, )

Michael E. Spreadbury
700 S.

4th

Street

Hamilton, MT 59840
Telephone: [phone]
mspreadCiilhotmail.com

Pro Se Plaintiff
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA

MISSOULA DIVISION

Cause No.: CV-ll-64-DWM-JCL
MICHAEL E. SPREADBURY
Plaintiff

)
)

v.

)

MOTION TO QUASH

BITTERROOT PUBLIC LIBRARY,

)

!NVALID SUBPOENAS

CITY OF HAMIL TON,

)

LEE ENTERPRISES INC.,

)

BOONE KARLBERG PC,

)

Defendants

)

Comes now Plaintiff with motion to move court to quash invalid subpoena deuces
tecum issued by Defendant Boone Karlberg PC on behalf of Defendants served
upon several third parties in violation ofPlaintiff expectation of privacy.

Plaintiff Motion to Quash

Cause 9:11-cv-1l-64-DWM-JCL

November 28, 2011

Motion:

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff moves court to quash unlawful subpoena deuces tecum
requests from Defendants that violate Plaintiff expectation ofprivacy, without
court approval, lacks release by Plaintiff, and in violation of federal statute that
protects confidential information.
Brief in Support:
Plaintiff has expectation of privacy, Defendant Boone did not establish with court
approval of release ofprotected information Privacy Act: 5 USC§ 552(a)(b);

HIPPA Act: 45 CFR§ 160-164; FERPA 1974: 20 USC§ 1232g & 34CFR part 99.
Without lawful subpoena, Defendant issuing unlawful requests to third parties with
respect to this case in violation of Plaintiff lawful expectation of privacy.
Plaintiff has expectation ofprivacy from unlawful subpoena US v. Miller 425 US

at 442 (1976). The issuance of subpoenas by Defendant Boone is controlled by
existing legal process Calif Bankers Assn. v. Shultz 416 U,) 21 (1974). Plaintiff
right to be free from government search and seizure violated as Defendant City of
Hamilton Montana seeks information unreasonably with unlawful subpoena;
government objectives violate privacy ofPlaintiff which he justifiably relies Katz
v. US 389 US at 353 (J 967). Information sought on behalf of government
protected by aforementioned federal laws with authority in this Honorable Court.
2

Plaintiff Motion to Quash

Cause 9:11-cv-1l-64-DWM-JCL

November 28, 2011

Defense intruded into Plaintiff zone ofprivacy in violation of 4th Amendment US
Constitution as Defendants in this cause of action 42 USC§ 1983 for civil rights

Hoffa v. US 385 US at 301-302 (1966) citing Boydv. US 116 US 616 (J886). The
nature ofthe documents needs to be examined for legitimacy, protecting Plaintiff
expectation of privacy concerning contents Couch v. US 400 US at 335 (1913).
Court is asked to quash all Defendant unlawful subpoena deuces tecum for
violation of expectation of Plaintiff privacy without court signature, release by
Plaintiff, or applicable order. Information sought by Defendants violate Plaintiff
expectation of privacy, right to be free from government search, seizure of such
records protected by federal statute, US Constitution Amendment 4.
Certificate of Compliance
From LR 1(d)(2)(E) US District Court Rules Montana, I certifY that this brief
conforms with 14 point font, New Times Roman typeface, is double spaced,
contains 356 words excluding title page, this compliance.

-;t...

Respectfully submitted this ~day of November, 20 II

Michael E. Spreadbury, Pro Se Plaintiff

3