In re T.O. ( 2018 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 17-1926
Filed January 24, 2018
IN THE INTEREST OF T.O.,
Minor Child,
S.O., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Mary L. Timko,
Associate Juvenile Judge.
A father appeals the district court’s order granting the State’s motion to
quash. AFFIRMED.
Harold K. Widdison of Harold K. Widdison, P.C., Sioux City, for appellant
father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Charles K. Phillips, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Marchelle M. Denker of Juvenile Law Center, Sioux City, guardian ad litem
for minor child.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Potterfield and Mullins, JJ.
2
VOGEL, Presiding Judge.
The father appeals the district court’s order granting the State’s motion to
quash. The father asserts the court abused its discretion when it granted the
State’s motion in response to his subpoena.
On September 6, 2016, a child-in-need-of-assistance (CINA) petition was
filed after a physical altercation between the father and his son, T.O. T.O. was
adjudicated CINA and removed from his father’s home on October 27, 2016, and
placed in the custody of the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS). T.O. was
placed in a foster home in Storm Lake and, subsequently, reported sexual abuse
by one of the other children in the home. T.O. was removed from that home and
placed in a residential facility. On November 3, 2017, the father served a subpoena
on the DHS seeking T.O.’s entire case file, including “all police reports and medical
reports regarding the sexual abuse incident involving T.O.” On November 8, the
State filed a motion to quash that, after a hearing, was granted by the district court.
Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.1701(4) protects persons subject to a
subpoena, stating, in relevant part:
a. Avoiding undue burden or expense; sanctions. A party or
attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take
reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a
person subject to the subpoena. The issuing court must enforce this
duty and impose an appropriate sanction, which may include lost
earnings and reasonable attorney’s fees, on a party or attorney who
fails to comply.
....
d. Quashing or modifying a subpoena.
(1) When required. On timely motion, the issuing court must
quash or modify a subpoena that:
1. Fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;
2. Requires a person who is neither a party nor a party’s
officer to travel more than 50 miles from where that person resides,
is employed, or regularly transacts business in person, except that a
3
person may be ordered to attend trial anywhere within the state in
which the person is served with a subpoena;
3. Requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter,
if no exception or waiver applies; or
4. Subjects a person to undue burden.
The district court has wide discretion in ruling on a motion to quash. Morris
v. Morris, 383 N.W.2d 527, 529 (Iowa 1986). An abuse of discretion occurs when
the trial court exercises its discretion on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable
or to an extent clearly unreasonable. In re Estate of Rutter, 633 N.W.2d 740, 745
(Iowa 2001). A ground or reason is untenable when it is not supported by
substantial evidence or is based on an erroneous application of the law. Id.After a hearing on permanency, the father’s motion to modify prior
dispositional orders, as well as the State’s motion to quash, the district court
summarily sustained the State’s motion. In the ruling on the father’s motion to
reconsider, the court found that the child was to be returned to his father and that
producing more than fourteen months-worth of documents in the entire DHS file
would be unduly burdensome. In addition, the court found the documents sought
held no evidentiary value because “the matter was uncontested and ripe for
dismissal.” Finally, the court determined that the father had been presented with
copies of the case permanency plan and discharge summary and had been invited
to participate in family team meetings where this information was shared. Although
the father questions what the State may be “hiding” from the father, the State
replies, “[T]he material sought here appeared to be of relevance to another case
at another time.” We agree. Therefore, there was no legitimate reason for
producing the entire DHS file in the current CINA proceeding. Upon our review,
4
we find no abuse of discretion in quashing the subpoena. We affirm pursuant to
Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(a), (d), and (e).
AFFIRMED.