ORDER
2023A-07591-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2024-01-02
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
John Good,
COMPLAINANT
v.
Full Frame Construction LLC
License No. ROC 324834,
RESPONDENT
No. 2023A-07591-CHC-ROC
ORDER
Complainant’s Motion to Quash is denied, the new deadline for production regarding Complainant’s subpoena is January 15, 2023, to allow Respondent sufficient time to produce documents and to allow sufficient time for Complainant to review said documents. Final production of all other document and witness disclosures will be January 19, 2023.
On December 8, 2023, Respondent submitted a subpoena request which was signed and returned on December 15, 2023.
On December 15, 2023, Complainant filed a Motion to Quash. Complainant argued the documents sought may be obtained by an alternative method; therefore, the subpoena ought to be quashed.
Respondent replied to Complainant’s Motion to Quash and argued the information is relevant, private, and non-public information in the exclusive control of Complainant.
The Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply to any matter heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings when a procedure is provided by statute. The Office of Administrative Hearings is authorized to issue subpoenas pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(C) which states in pertinent part, “[t]he administrative law judge may issue subpoenas to compel . . . the production of documents.”
An administrative law judge shall quash or modify a subpoena if it is unreasonable, oppressive, or the desired evidence may be obtained by alternative method. Here, the documentation sought by Complainant is not unreasonable nor is it oppressive to produce such documents. It is reasonable to request relevant documentation which can prove or disprove a fact of consequence to the proceeding. The documentation requested by Complainant is relevant to a fact of consequence, namely the total compensation amount allegedly owed. The documents Respondent seeks are private, non-public, and are exclusively under the control of Complainant; therefore, there is no alternative method to receive said documents.
For the above reasons, Complainant’s Motion to Quash is denied.
Done this day, January 2, 2024.
/s/ Brian Del Vecchio
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole
Director
Registrar of Contractors
c/o Legal Department
1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105
Phoenix, AZ 85007
[email redacted]
Lisa Melton
[email redacted]
John Good
[email redacted]
Andrew Wenker
LANG THAL KING & HANSON PC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff