Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 12-06-2023

Case Style:

Lisa Posthumus Lyons v. My Pillow, Inc.

Case Number: 1:22-cv-01191

Judge: Hala Y. Jarbou

Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan (Kent County)

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Click Here For The Best Grand Rapids Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory

Defendant's Attorney: Alexandria J. Taylor, Matthew R. Eslick

Description: Grand Rapids, Michigan personal injury lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued the Defendant on assault, libel and slander theories.

On February 22, 2021, U.S. Dominion, Inc., Dominion Voting Systems, Inc., and Dominion Voting Systems Corporation brought claims of defamation and deceptive trade practices against Respondents in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. (Dominion Compl., ECF No. 8-2.) Dominion is seeking approximately $1.3 billion dollars in damages on both counts. (See id.) With respect to the defamation claim, Dominion alleges that Respondents made false statements that Dominion used its algorithms to manipulate the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. (Id. ¶¶ 163-72.)

Kent County uses Dominion voting machines and software to conduct elections. (Uzarski Decl. ¶ 6, ECF No. 1-2.) Petitioner Lyons is the Kent County Clerk. On September 6, 2022, Respondents subpoenaed Petitioner to produce information relating to Kent County's voting machines and the 2020 election, including but not limited to: “[c]opies of any document, report, or spreadsheet that was produced in relation to the November 2020 Election,” “[c]opies of all contracts and agreements with the suppliers of any of Your electronic election system equipment, devices, software, or support services,” “[c]opies of all contracts and agreements related to network security, network monitoring, or cybersecurity concerning all or any part of Your electronic election system,” and “[a] list of all personnel who had access to the EMS Server or any EMS server-connected computing device for the period January 1, 2019 through November 30, 2020.” (Subpoena, ECF No. 1-7.) The subpoena had a return date of September 30, 2022. (Id.) Respondents argue that they “have reason to infer that information from Dominion equipment used in the 2020 election will provide evidence concerning the truth or inherent probability of the statements placed at issue by Dominion's complaint” to defeat the defamation claim. (Respondents' Appeal of Order Quashing Subpoena, ECF No. 19, PageID.577.)

On September 9, 2022, Petitioner informed Respondents that the subpoena as written “would impose a considerable burden on the elections staff and expense to the County.” (9/9/2022 Letter from Petitioner, ECF No. 1-9.) Petitioner wrote to Respondents again on September 16, 2022, noted their failure to respond, and requested that they withdraw their subpoena. (9/16/2022 Letter from Petitioner, ECF No. 1-10.) Respondents replied on September 21, 2022, and indicated that because similar subpoenas were served on several other counties with identical return dates, they intended to review the responses to the other subpoenas before determining how to proceed with respect to the Kent County subpoena. (9/21/2022 Letter from Respondents, ECF No. 1-11.)

Petitioner notified Respondents of her motion to quash the subpoena and requested a waiver of service on October 6, 2022. (Petitioner's Notice of Motion to Quash, ECF No. 8-12.) Respondents waived service on October 17, 2022. (Respondents' Waiver of Service, ECF No. 813.) The magistrate judge heard oral arguments on the motion on November 29, 2022. (11/29/2022 Hr'g Minutes, ECF No. 15.) The same day, the magistrate judge entered an order quashing the subpoena, sanctioning Respondents, and ordering Petitioner to file documentation of attorney's fees and costs associated with the motion to quash within fourteen days. (11/29/2022 Order, ECF No. 16.) Petitioner timely complied (ECF No. 18), and Respondents timely filed their response (ECF No. 26). The magistrate judge then ordered Petitioner to supplement the bill of costs with counsel's billing records (ECF No. 27). Petitioner again complied (ECF No. 28) and Respondents timely filed another response to the supplement (ECF No. 31). After considering Petitioner's bill of costs as well as Respondents' arguments in opposition, the magistrate judge awarded Petitioner $21,210.50 in attorney's fees and costs. (1/26/2023 Order, ECF No. 35.)...

Outcome: For the reasons stated above, the Court will deny Respondents' appeals of the magistrate judge's orders quashing their subpoena (ECF No. 19) and awarding Petitioner attorney's fees and costs (ECF No. 36). An order will enter consistent with this opinion.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:


Find a Lawyer


Find a Case