Monday, April 23, 2018

SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

SCDMV, et al vs. Russell Randolph Scott

South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles

South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles and Dorchester County Sherriff’s

Russell Randolph Scott

In Re: Notice of Motion and Motion and Memorandum to Quash Subpoena




This case comes before me pursuant to two Motions to Quash Subpoena filed by the Petitioner, Dorchester County Sherriff’s Department, and Deputy Randy Botten, individually. Respondent seeks to conduct a deposition of Deputy Botten which is opposed by Dorchester County Sherriff’s Department and Deputy Botten, individually.

DMVH Rule 11 provides that a party may conduct one (1) deposition under SCRCP Rule 30. Rule 11 also provides that discovery “shall be conducted according to the procedures in Rules 26-37, SCRCP.” S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-320 (d) (Supp. 2007) further provides that “[a] person to whom a subpoena has been issued may move before the administrative law judge for an order quashing or modifying the subpoena.” Therefore, a conference call was held into this matter on May 27, 2008. After lengthy arguments, I determined that both motions should be denied.

More specifically, I find that Respondent properly served Deputy Botten pursuant to SCRCP 45 (b)(1) and 4 (d)(5). Rule 45 (b)(1) provides that “[s]ervice of a subpoena upon a person named therein shall be made in the same manner prescribed for service of a summons and complaint in Rule 4(d) or (j). . . .” Furthermore, Rule 4 (d)(5) provides that service upon a public official is perfected upon delivering a copy of the subpoena to the “officer or agency.” Here, service was made to and accepted by the Major who is Deputy Botten’s supervisor.

I also find that Petitioner failed to establish that requiring a deposition in this administrative proceeding improperly hindered the State’s criminal prosecution against Respondent for driving under the influence. Petitioner provided no specific evidence that the deposition would interfere with the criminal process, other than an assertion that it was a “back door attempt” at deposing a state’s witness. Nevertheless, the holding of simultaneous civil and related criminal proceedings by the State of South Carolina has been clearly upheld. S.C. Dep't of Soc. Serv. v. Walter, 369 S.C. 384, 631 S.E.2d 913 (Ct. App. 2006); see also State v. Morris, 376 S.C. 189, 200, 656 S.E.2d 359, 365 (2008) (“[T]he occurrence of parallel civil and criminal investigations does not, absent extraordinary circumstance, violate a defendant’s rights to due process.”). Moreover, the Court notes that neither Petitioner nor Deputy Botten have moved to stay the subpoena pending the completion of the criminal proceeding; rather, they have moved to have the subpoena quashed. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motions to Quash Subpoena filed by the Dorchester County Sherriff’s Department and by Deputy Randy Botten, individually, are DENIED.



Ralph King Anderson, III

Administrative Law Judge

May 29, 2008

Columbia, South Carolina