PDF copy: ORDER

2025A-00483-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-09-04

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Deborah Armstrong, No. 2025A-00483-CHC-ROC COMPLAINANT ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR v. ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS AD TESTIFICANDUM AND SUBPOENAS Urias Custom Remodeling LLC, DUCES TECUM License No. ROC 270042, RESPONDENT

On August 25, 2025, Complainant, Deborah Armstrong filed separate motions for issuance of subpoenas, pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(C). Five motions1 seek subpoenas ad testificandum to compel the appearance and testimony of Rick Karr, David Willett, Christen Bilow, and Jessica Fitzgerald at the hearing scheduled for September 25, 2025. The others seek subpoenas duces tecum to compel Rusing, Lopez, & Lizardi, PLLC to produce “any and all information including cancelled checks and other documentation showing amounts paid to Rusing, Lopez, & Lizardi PLLC from [Respondent], Baltazar “Tito” Urias, and/or Jennifer Urias beginning February 3, 2025 up to and including the production date” and to compel BMO Bank to produce “any and all bank records for the account of [Respondent], Baltazar “Tito” Urias, and/or Jennifer Urias documenting deposits and withdrawals made, and indicating the nature of the withdrawals, beginning February 3, 2025 up to and including the production date.” Respondent, by and through counsel, opposed both Motions for Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum.2

1. The ad testificandum subpoena requests: Complainant has not demonstrated that subpoenaing Rick Karr, David Willet, Christen Bilow, and Jessica Fitzgerald to testify at the hearing is warranted. In fact,

Complainant has not at all identified these individuals and their potential relevance to

the issues before the Tribunal. Thus, Complainant has failed to establish that testimony

Though five Motions were filed, one was duplicative. There are actually four separate Motions for Issuance of Subpoena Ad Testificandum. As evidenced in its August 25, 2025 Motion to Quash. Office of Administrative Hearings 1740 West Adams Street, Lower Level Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826 from the named individuals would be either relevant or material. This failure itself provides an independent basis for rejecting Appellant’s motion to call the named individuals as witnesses. Additionally, the subpoenas were filed with the Tribunal as images (.png and .jpeg), which is not an acceptable format. All documentation filed with the Tribunal must be in portable document format (.pdf). Accordingly, Complainant’s motion for issuance of subpoenas ad testificandum to Rick Karr, David Willet, Christen Bilow, and Jessica Fitzgerald is DENIED.

2. The duces tecum subpoena requests: In Complainant’s first motion she seeks, “any and all information including cancelled checks and other documentation showing amounts paid to Rusing, Lopez, & Lizardi PLLC from [Respondent], Baltazar “Tito” Urias, and/or Jennifer Urias beginning February 3, 2025 up to and including the production date.” In its Motion to Quash, Respondent’s counsel argues the information is privileged, unreasonable and oppressive, and “fundamentally untethered to the subject matter of the ROC’s claims against [Respondent].” In her response to Respondent’s Motion to Quash, Complainant argues that the requested information is not privileged and is relevant to Respondent’s potential defense of “limited financial means.” The request is overly broad in scope, not limited only to the issue before this Tribunal. Additionally, the undersigned agrees that it is unreasonable and oppressive and Complainant has not demonstrated that the probative value of the requested documents outweighs the burden to the Respondent. Accordingly, Complainant’s motion for issuance of subpoena duces tecum to Rusing, Lopez & Lizardi PLLC is DENIED.

In Complainant’s second motion she seeks, “any and all bank records for the account of [Respondent], Baltazar “Tito” Urias, and/or Jennifer Urias documenting deposits and withdrawals made, and indicating the nature of the withdrawals, beginning February 3, 2025 up to and including the production date.” In its Motion to Quash, Respondent’s counsel argues the request is expansive, seeking every deposit or withdrawal that Respondent and its private principals received or made since February 2025, and is not relevant to whether Respondent’s “workmanship was poor, [it] failed to comply with regulatory requirements, or whether [it] did not meet directive conditions.” In her response to Respondent’s Motion to Quash, Complainant argues that the requested information is not privileged and is relevant to Respondent’s potential defense of “limited financial means.” The request is overly broad in scope, not limited only to the issue before this Tribunal. Additionally, the undersigned agrees with Respondent that it is unreasonable and oppressive and Complainant has not demonstrated that the probative value of the requested documents outweighs the burden to the Respondent. Accordingly, Complainant’s motion for issuance of subpoena duces tecum to BMO Bank is DENIED.

Done this day, September 4, 2025.

/s/ Nedra-Su Kawasaki Administrative Law Judge Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to: Tom Cole, Director Registrar of Contractors [email redacted] Deborah Armstrong [email redacted] John Smith [email redacted] Urias Custom Remodeling LLC [email redacted] Oscar S. Lizardi, Esq. Matthew P. DeWeerdt Rusing Lopez & Lizardi PLLC [email redacted] [email redacted]

By: OAH Staff