Filing # 39959686 E-Filed 04/07/2016 09:08:49 AM. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR DIXIE COUNTY, FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, v. CASE NO.: 2014-201-CF TERRY G. TRUSSELL, Defendant. MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER COMES NOW, Governor Rick Scott, by and through the undersigned counsel, and hereby moves this Honorable Court to quash the Subpoena for Trial served-upon Governor Rick Scott by Terry G. Trussell (Defendant), and enter a protective order, on the grounds Defendant has failed to establish that the testimony to be elicited is necessary, relevant, and unavailable from another source; and further moves this Honorable Court to quash the Subpoena Duces ‘Tecum for Trial served upon “Governor Records Custodian” (sie) by Defendant, and enter a protective order, on the grounds the subpoena is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not likely to lead to the discovery of evidence relevant to the offense charged or admissible in trial, In support thereof, undersigned counsel states as follows: Subpoena For Trial ~ Governor Rick Scott 1. Defendant served a Subpoena for Trial upon Governor Rick Scott on March 30, 2016, compelling his appearance and testimony in this criminal case beginning June 6, 2016. See attached Exhibit 1. 2. Itis well-settled in Florida law that “department heads and similarly high-ranking officials should not ordinarily be compelled to testify unless it has been established that the testimony to be elicited is necessary and relevant and unavailable from a lesser ranking officer.” Fla, Office of Ins. Regulation v, Fla, Dep't of Fin. Serv., 159 0.34 945, 1 Electronically Filed Dixie Case # 14000201CFAXMX 04/07/2016 09:08:49 AM950 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (citing Dep't of Health and Rehab. Serv. v. Brooke, 573 $0.24 363, 371 (Fla. Ist DCA 1991). Thus, it is incumbent upon the party seeking to compel such testimony to exhaust other discovery mechanisms and demonstrate the high-ranking official “is uniquely able to provide relevant information which cannot be obtained from other sources.” Id. (quoting Dep't of Ag. & Consumer Serv. v. Broward County, 810 So.3d 1056, 1058 (Fla. Ist DCA 2005)). 3. To the extent Defendant seeks testimony from Governor Scott to challenge his executive assignment of State Attorney William Meggs to perform.the duties of State Attomey Jeffrey Sicgmeister related to the investigation and prosecution of Defendant in the present case, such line of argument has to legal foundation and should be barred in the present proceeding, Governor Seott’s authority to assign a state attorney to represent the state in proceedings in another circuit is clear. Fla. Stat. §27.14(1); see Austin v, State ex rel. Christian, 310 So.2d 289, 292 (Fla, 1975) (“We hold that if for any good and sufficient reason the Governor thinks that the ends of justice would best be served, he ‘may assign any statevattorney Of the State to the discharge of the duties of state attorney in any investigations in any circuit of the State.”). Moreover, Governor Scott's authority to apply to the Florida Supreme Court for the extension of the original term of an ‘executive assignment is equally unambiguous. Fla. Stat. §27.14(1).! In any event, a To the extent Defendant secks to challenge the authority of State Attorney Meggs to prosecute this criminal case on the grounds the executive assignment under which the State Attorney is acting had expited, without extension, for a brief period of time before its subsequent extension, this line of attack is, also legally deficient. State Attorney Meggs was assigned to the Third Judicial Circuit to prosecute this matter pursuant to Executive Order 2014-246, dated September 4, 2014, which was set to expire on September 4, 2015. State Attorney Meggs requested an extension of his executive assignment by letter on ‘October 9, 2015, and the original executive assignment was thereafter extended by Executive Order 2015- 202, which extension was then approved by the Florida Supreme Court on October 15, 2015, effective, nunc pro tune, September 4, 2015. Thus, irrespective of the temporary lapse between the expiration of Executive Order 2014-246 and the subsequent issuance and approval of Executive Order 2015-202, the 2criminal trial is not the proper method to challenge an executive assignment, See id. at 290 (“If the power and authority of an assigned State Attomey is to be tested, it should be done in direct proceedings by quo warranto.”) 4, Defendant has failed, and indeed is unable, to demonstrate the necessity, relevance, or unavailability of information from other sources to warrant the extraordinary measure of compelling the testimony of Governor Scott in the case at bar. Governor Scott is not a ‘material witness in this criminal proceeding, and Defendant has failed to put forth any legally cognizable reason his testimony should be required For the foregoing deficiencies, the Subpoena for Trial served upon Governor Scott must be quashed. Subpoena Duces Tecum for Trial - Governor's Records Custodian 5. Defendant served a Subpoena Duces Tecum for Trial upon “Governor Records Custodian” (sic) on March 30, 2016, compelling testimony and the production of listed documents inthis criminal case beginning June 6, 2016. See attached Exhibit 2 6. A-court may quash or modify-a subpoena for production of documentary evidence if it is unreasonable and oppressive. FlarR. Civ. P. 1.410(c). “Itis universally agreed that subpoena duces tecum must specify with reasonable particularity the documents sought to be produced, in order that the witness may be informed what is required of him and executive assignment of State Attorney Meggs has remained legally effective, uninterrupted, since September 4, 2014 2 Although Count XIII of the Information charges Defendant “unlawfully falsely under color of law attempts [sic] in any way to influence, intimidate, harass, retaliate against, or hinder Florida Governor Rick Scott, a public employee, involving the discharge of his official duties by means of, but not limited to threats of or actual physical abuse or harassment or through the use of simulated legal process, contrary to Section 843 0855(4)," Governor Scott does not possess material information pertaining to this charge, and has, accordingly, been listed as a “Category C” witness by State Attorney Meggs. State . Trussell, Case No, 2014-201-CF, State's 3°! Amended Answer to Demand for Discovery (Oct. 29, 2015). “Category C” witnesses are “alll witnesses who performed only ministerial functions or whom the prosecutor does not intend to call at trial and whose involvement with and knowledge of the case is fully set out in a police report or other statement furnished to the defense”. Fla, R. Crim. P.R, 3.220(b)(1)(AN GH).may intelligently obey the command of the subpoena.” Vann v. State, 85 So.2d 133, 136 (Fla, 1956), ‘The “reasonable particularity” requirement “may be satisfied if the categories of documents desired are stated, along with a reasonable period of time covered by the documents and a statement of the subject matter to which the documents pertain.” {d, However, there must be some degree of specification, and “[a] blanket request for a general category is insufficient.” Palmer v. Servis, 393 So.2d 653, 654 (Fla. Sth DCA 1981), “The desired documents, books or papers should be designated with sufficient particularity as to aflirmatively suggest their existence and materiality...” a. at 655. Moreover, a subpoena duces tecum “may not be used for a mere “fishing expedition’ or general inquisitorial examination of the papers witha view to ascertaining whether something of value may or may not Show up.” MeCarty v, Estate of Elizabeth Schultz, 372 So.24 210; 212 (Fla. 34 DCA 1979); see also Palmer, 393 So.2d at 654 (The subpoéna duces tecum should not become a search warrant, requiring a witness to produce broad categories of items which the party can search to find what may be wanted: 7. Mems 1, 5,6, 7,and 8 listed in Defendant's Subpoena Duces Tecum for Trial are clear examples of a prohibited “fishing expedition,” as each item fails to meet the “reasonable particularity” requirement of a proper subpoena duces tecum, Item 1 is the only request that includes a date range for responsive documents (albeit a time period spanning more than 27 months), but Defendant fails to identify specific executive orders he seeks that ‘meet the designated criteria, evincing his apparent uncertainty whether any such materials actually exist.’ Meanwhile, Items 5, 6, 7, and 8 fail to designate a reasonable time period 5 Additionally, because EOG maintains physical files for executive assignments, responding to Defendant's subpoena duces tecum would require the records custodian to manually review each 4for responsive documents, and provide only generic, broad terms to guide the search for materials whose existence, much less relevance to the pending criminal charges, dubious. It is abundantly clear Defendant has served a scattershot demand upon the Executive Office of the Governor (EOG) records custodian, and to compel a third-party to respond to such a “fishing expedition” would be unreasonable, unduly burdensome, and oppressive. See McCarty, 372 $o.2d at 212; see also Palmer, 393 So.2d at 654. 8. For Items 1, 2, 3, and 4 listed in Defendant's Subpoena Duces Tecum for Trial, the EOG is not the records custodian of executive orders or orders of the Florida Supreme Court, and would therefore be unable to provide “certified copies, which are authenticated, for admission into evidence,” as demanded by Defendants subpoena.’ A subpoena duces tecum “should only require produetion of documents which [the subpoenaed party] has in his possession, or which are under his control and supervision.” Fritz v. Norflor Constr. Co., 386 So.2d 899, 901 (Fla. Sth DCA 1980).* All executive orders of Governor Scott are filed with and maintained by the Florida Department of State. Likewise, the clerk of the Florida Supreme Court would be the logical records custodian for orders of the Florida Supreme Court, EOG is not the offi records custodian of the requested individual file to determine whether itis responsive. Since 2014, approximately 500 executive assignments have been made by Governor Scott, making the manual review of each file a time-intensive, burdensome task. More importantly, it is exceedingly doubtful an unrelated executive assignment made by Governor Scott in the past two years is relevant to or admissible in Defendant's case, making the response to Defendant's subpoena a likely exercise in futility 4 On January 13,2016, in response to Defendant's Subpoena for Deposition Duces Tecum served upon the “Records Custodian, Florida Governor's Office,” undersigned counsel provided copies of the materials sought im Items 2, 3, and 4, which were maintained in EOG's files for internal tracking, purposes, but notified Defendant that FOG is not the proper custodian of records for executive orders and Florida Supreme Court orders, and would therefore be unable to provide certified copies, as requested. Defendant had also made a request at that time for materials substantially similar to tem 1 in the Subpoena Duces Tecum for Trial, which undersigned counsel attempted to have Defendant narrow to identify particular executive orders to be produced because the requested production was unreasonably broad and would be unduly burdensome to compile. Defendant withclrew his request for such materials at that time, but now apparently renews his unreasonably burclensome and oppressive demand, 5materials, and is therefore unable to comply with Defendant's demand for “certified copies, which are authenticated, for admission into evidence.” 9, Based on the foregoing, Defendant's Subpoena Duces Tecum for Trial is clearly deficient, and compliance with its demands for questionably relevant and generically defined materials would be unreasonable, unduly burdensome, and oppressive. For the foregoing deficiencies, the Subpoena Duces Tecum for Trial served upon the EOG records custodian must be quashed. WHEREFORE, undersigned counsel respectfully requests this Honorable Court quash Defendant's Subpoena for Trial and Subpoena Duces Tecum for Trial, and enter a protective order in favor of Governor Rick Scott and the BOG Records Custodian. Respectfully Submitted, ‘siaJohn B. Heeki JOHN P. HEEKIN Fla. Bar No. 094658 Assistant General Counsel Executive Office of Governor Rick Scott The Capitol, Suite 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 ‘Vel: (850) 717-9310 Fax: (850) 488-9810 Jack Heekin@eog.myflorida.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVIC 1 HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoii 1g was furnished by electronic mail this 7th day of April, 2016, to counsel for the State of Florida, State Attorney William Meggs (sao2/eon@leoncountyfl.gov), and counsel for Defendant, Inger M. Garcia (atorney@ingergareia.com). is John P. Heekin. Assistant General CounselEXHIBIT 1pg BEY vO (2 \o \ IN THE CIRCUIT COURT IN AND FOR DIXIE COUNTY, FLORIDA CRIMINAL DIVISION SUBPOENA FOR TRIAL STATE OF FLORIDA, Case No.: 2014-201-CF v Charges: Violations F.S, 843.0855: Impersonation of a Public Official TERRY G. TRUSSELL, Intimidating Public Officials Simulating Legal Process Defendant. SUBPOENA FOR TRIAL Governor Rick Scott 400 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001 YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear before James Oy Hankinson, Judge of the Second Judicial Circuit, tempotarily-assigned Judge of thé Third Judicial Circuit Court, at Courtroom “A’, Dixie County Courthouse, 214NE 351 Hwy, Cross City, FL 32628, beginning June 6, at 9:00 a.m. and at all times theteafter as required, to testify in this Trial, If you feil to appear, you may be in contempt ofcourt You are subpocnaed to:tippear by the following attomey, and unless excused from this subpoena by these attomeys or the court, you shall respond to this subpoena as directed, y accommodation in order to participate | in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. | Please contact the ADA Coordinator, Dixie County Courthouse, 21 NE 351 Hivy, Cross | City, Florida 32628, (352) 498-1200, at least 7 days before your scheduled court | appearance, or immediately upon receiving this notification if the time before the scheduled appearance is less than 7 days; if you are hearing or voice impaired, call 711. DATED this 28th day of March, 2016. Respectfully submitted, Inger M. Garcia, Esq. Garcia Legal Group, P.A. Attomeys for Defendant4839 Volunteer Road - #514 Fort Lauderdale. Florida 33330 Tel ~ (954)894-9962 - Fax: (954) 446-1635 Servic attorney s@iingergurcia.com jawfirm.com \ By: /s/ Inger M. Garcia Inger M. Garcia, Esq. * PBN: 0106917 IMPORTANT v THIS TRIAL IS SET FOR A TWO-WEEK DOCKET, PLEASE CALL BEFORE YOU APPEAR SO WE CAN PROVIDE AN ESTIMATED DATE AND. TIME FOR APPEARANCE AS A COURTESY TO YOU y PLEASE CALL (954) 394-7461 UPON RECEIPT OF THIS TRIAL SUBPOENA TO PROVIDE A CONTACT NUMBER AND E-MAIL. YOU MAY ALSO E-MAIL ATTORNEY @ELORIDAROTEAWEIRM.GOM IN ADDITION TO CALLING. CERTIFICATE OF SE) WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished via clectronie mail on March 28, 2016 to: William: N. Meggs, Esq., Attorney for the State, Leon County Courthousey 301, S. Montoe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (850) 606-6000 (email: sao2leon@leoncountyfl,gov) ‘si Inger M. Garcia Inger M. Garcia, Es¢ . i, ae 9 EXHIBIT 2 om, oepote Geshe: Say ior? IN THE CIRCUIT COURT IN AND FOR DIXIE COUNTY, FLORIDA CRIMINAL DIVISION FOR TRIAL STATE OF FLORIDA, ‘Case No.: 2014-201-CF v Charges: Violations F.S. 843.0855; Impersonation of a Public Official Terry G. Trussell, Intimidating Public Officials Simulating Legal Process Defendant. SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM FOR TRIAL Governor Records Custodian 400 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001 YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear before James C. Hankinson, Judge of the Second Judicial Circuit, temporarily-assigned Judge of the Third Judicial Circuit Cour, at Courtroom ‘A’, Dixie County Courthouse, 214 NE 351 Hwy, Cross City, FL 32628, beginning June 6, ut 9:00 aan, and at all times thereafter as required, to testify in this Trial, with the documents on the attached list. If you fail to appear, you may be in contempt of court. Yout are subpoenaed to appear by the following atlomey, and unless excused from this subpoena by these attorneys of the court, yon shall respond to this subpoena as directed | /[Tfyou are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate | in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the ADA Coordinator, Dixie County Courthouse, 21 NE 351 Hwy, Cross | ity, Florida 32628, (352) 498-1200, at least 7 days before your scheduled court appearance, or immediately upon receiving this notification if the time before the | scheduled appearance is less than 7 days; if you are hearing or voice impaired, call 711. DATED this 28th day of March, 2016. Respectfully submitted, Inger M. Garcia, Esq. Garcia Legal Group, P.A. Attorneys for Defendant 14839 Volunteer Road - #514 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33330 Tel - (954)894-9962 - Fax: (954) 446-1635 Service E-Mail: at ingergarcia.com By; /s/ Inger M, Garcia Inger M. Garcia, Esq, + FBN: 0106917 IMPORTANT v THIS TRIAL IS SET FOR A TWO-WEEK DOCKET. PLEASE CALL BEFORE YOU APPEAR SO WE CAN PROVIDE AN ESTIMATED DATE AND. TIME FOR APPEARANCE AS A COURTESY TO YOU. vy PLEASE CALL (954) 394-7461 UPON RECEIPT OF THIS TRIAL SUBPOENA TO PROVIDE A CONTACT NUMBER AND E-MAIL» YOU MAY ALSO E-MAIL ATI IDAPOTLAWFIRM.COM IN ADDITION TO CALLING. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct eopy of the foregoing was furnished via cleettonie mail on March 28, 2016 to: William N, Meggs, Esq., Attorney for the State, Leon, County Courthouse, 301 $; Montoe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (850) 606-6000 (email sao2leon@leoncountyfl. gov) ‘s! Inger M cia Inger M. Garcia, EsqMENTS TO BRING TO TRIAL DOCU i 6 Any Executive Orders during Gov. Scott’s terms in office in 2014, 2015 and 2016, where he extended a State Attorney's temporary assignment after the original assignment was permitted to expire; A copy of Executive Order 14-246 and William N. Meggs’ office’s timely notification to extend the time of Executive Order 14-246 and any supporting documents, and/or timely, extensions; A copy of Gov. Scott’s application to the Florida Supreme Court to allow extension of Executive Order 14-246 (per F.S. 27.14) alongwith any motions, e-mails, or other documents A copy of the Florida Supreme Court's Order granting extension of time on the Executive Order 14-246) thereby purportedly validating Executive Order 15-202; Any and all doctments or e-mails that contain the words “sovereign citizen(s)” Anly and all documents or estiails containing the words “common law grand jury” All documents in relation to “Terry Trussell” or this underlying criminal ca Any commilinications involving Fla,Stat, §843.0835. 27.14 Assigning state attorneys to other circuits — (1) Any exchange or assignment of any state attomey to a particular circuit shall expire 12 months after the date of issuance, unless an extension is approved by order of the Supreme Court upon application of the Governor showing good and sufficient cause to extend such exchange or assignment. Please bring certified copies, which are authenticated, for admission into evidence