STJPII wrote: “The State had a ‘duty’ to object? I subpoena and obtain state records almost every week. The state has never filed a Motion to Quash or for seek a protective Order. The opposing party may do that but not the State.”
See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1): “A party or any person from whom discovery is sought may move for a protective order in the court where the action is pending — or as an alternative on matters relating to a deposition, in the court for the district where the deposition will be taken.”
That aside, I don’t think Hawaii sought a protective order nor moved to quash. They held that Taitz’ subpoenas were not properly issued and served, so they responded with a letter back to Taitz rather than a motion to the Court. http://www.scribd.com/doc/57878406/Letter-to-Orly-Taitz-From-Hawaii-AG-Re-Subpoena-BC-Cannot-Be-Provided-Per-HI-State-Law
“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.