“MAY move for a protective order” seems dispositive here and corroborates my point, which was that while the state may have the legal right to object, they seldom do in my experience. In other words, the state ususally doesn’t have a dog in the fight and absent and overriding policy consideration will not object. The Hawaii’s sandbagging here is politically motivated and suspicious, IMHO.
The only real question is whether the court will rely on FRCP 45 (c)(1), FRCP 11(c), or both when it imposes sanctions on Orly for this latest publicity stunt.
STJPII wrote: “MAY move for a protective order” seems dispositive here and corroborates my point, which was that while the state may have the legal right to object, they seldom do in my experience.
If that was your point why did you write, “The opposing party may do that but not the State”? Both parties may do so, according the the rule I cited. As Mr. Lucky aptly points out, a non-party may also serve objections to the subpoena on the issuer, without moving to quash or seeking a protective order.
STJPII wrote: “In other words, the state ususally doesn’t have a dog in the fight and absent and overriding policy consideration will not object. The Hawaii’s sandbagging here is politically motivated and suspicious, IMHO.”
You mix an interesting issue with a ludicrous conspiracy theory. You are correct that the state of Hawaii has no interest in whether Orly Taitz is entitled to a court order granting her access to Barack Obama’s birth records, and I note that their response takes no stand on that point.
As of now Taitz has no such order, so the HDoH applies state law and denies Taitz access to the personal record. They have no choice. Even if they agree that Obama waived any privacy interest, the law grants them no discretion, no authority to make that call.
Your point, STJPII, that Hawaii “doesn’t have a dog in the fight” is significant, but you don’t seem to realize on which side it plays.