In Roddy v. Superior Court, case no. D049796 (decision filed May 16, 2007, ordered published on June 7, 2007) the jury commissioner sought writ review of a trial court order enforcing a subpoena duces tecum served on him. The suboena sought DMV information in the jury commissioner’s possession. It was served on behalf of criminal defendants who were challenging the constitutionality of the procedures employed by the jury commissioner. The Fourth District Court of Appeal summarizes its conclusion this way in the introduction:
We conclude Defendants have not shown the DMV information subject to the subpoena is relevant under the applicable standard for disclosure of information necessary to their investigation of their reasonable belief that underrepresentation of cognizable groups may be the result of improper jury selection practices.
Usually I am quite impressed by how a court succinctly sums up its holding. But this seems to me like too many long, complicated words in a single sentence. It’s grammatically and substantively correct, but I might have broken it into two or more sentences, even if it made the summary longer.