Case 1:15-cv-00104-CG-N Document 24 Filed 03/11/15 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CARI D. SEARCY,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
HON. DON DAVIS, individually and in )
his official capacity as Probate Judge )
for Mobile County, Alabama,
)
)
Defendant.
)

Civil Action No.

Case No. 1:15-cv-104-CG-N

DEFENDANTS REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO

DEFENDANTS MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

COMES NOW defendant DON DAVIS, Mobile County Judge of Probate, and
replies to Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Motion to Quash Subpoena stating as
follows:
1.

Judge Davis filed a recusal order on March 9, 2015 and can no longer

rule on the adoption proceeding in the Mobile County Probate Court.

2.

Judge Davis recusal order cites Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics,

Canon 3(c)(1), and Judge Davis has forwarded his order to the Chief Justice of the
Alabama Supreme Court for reassignment as required by Alabama law. Judge Davis
would further cite the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics 3(a)(6):

Case 1:15-cv-00104-CG-N Document 24 Filed 03/11/15 Page 2 of 5

A judge should abstain from public comment about a pending or

impending proceeding in any court, and should require similar
abstention on the part of court personnel subject to his direction and
control. This subsection does not prohibit judges from making public
statements in the course of their official duties or from explaining for
public information the procedures of the court.
3.

Plaintiff desires testimony that would prove that the entry of the relief

would serve the public interest. A clear public interest would also demand that a
judge must respect the law and respect the parties before him, and he should avoid
conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. See Ala. Canon of Judicial Ethics,
Canon 2(a) and (b). The actions in this case are particularly sensitive due to the fact
that this case involves a minor child, and all adoption records are confidential.
4.

The plaintiff would further seek to prove that the threatened injury

outweighs the harm the relief would inflict on the non-movant, Judge Davis. The
plaintiff movant wishes to move forward with an adoption. The United States
Supreme Court is expected to issue a final, binding order which would take
precedence over actions taken by this Court or actions taken by the Alabama Supreme
Court within a matter of weeks. To pierce the sanctity and dignity of the judicial
system would inflict great harm, not only on the non-movant, Judge Davis, but also
on members of the judiciary throughout the state in all courts as judges could be
called upon to testify regarding cases that are before them presently or have been
before them in the past, which could create chaos in the court system.

Case 1:15-cv-00104-CG-N Document 24 Filed 03/11/15 Page 3 of 5

5.

Plaintiff has cited no case law or rule of procedure to counter those

authorities cited by the defendant in the Motion to Quash.

6.

The defendant adopts all arguments made in the defendants Motion to

Quash Subpoena filed with this Court on February 27, 2015 (Doc. 11).
7.

Alternatively, the defendant would move to dismiss the Motion for

Permanent and Preliminary Injunction, as this issue is moot due to the recusal of
Judge Davis. The plaintiffs response states that the plaintiff seeks Judge Davis
testimony regarding whether the threatened injury outweighs harm the relief would
inflict on the non-movant and whether the injunction would serve the public interest.
8.

Neither of these elements is relevant any longer since the preliminary

injunction cannot be issued against Judge Davis since he no longer has the case
before him and since he amended the interlocutory order.
9.

Additionally, should threatened injury and public interest remain issues,

the plaintiff is not required to have Judge Davis prove such.

Case 1:15-cv-00104-CG-N Document 24 Filed 03/11/15 Page 4 of 5

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, defendant DON DAVIS

respectfully moves to quash the subpoena.

ATTORNEYS FOR DON DAVIS

s/ Mark S. Boardman
Mark S. Boardman (ASB-8572-B65M)
Clay R. Carr (ASB-5650-C42C)
Teresa B. Petelos (ASB-8716-L66T)
BOARDMAN, CARR, BENNETT, WATKINS,
HILL & GAMBLE, P.C.
400 Boardman Drive
Chelsea, Alabama 35043-8211
Telephone: (205) 678-8000
Facsimile: (205) 678-0000
/s/ Harry V. Satterwhite
Harry V. Satterwhite
J. Michael Druhan, Jr.
SATTERWHITE, DRUHAN, GAILLARD &
TYLER, L.L.C.
1325 Dauphin Street
Mobile, Alabama 36604
Telephone: (251)432-8120
Facsimile: (251)405-0147
Along With:

Lee L. Hale
501 Church Street
Mobile, Alabama 36602

Case 1:15-cv-00104-CG-N Document 24 Filed 03/11/15 Page 5 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I do hereby certify that on March 11, 2015, I electronically filed the foregoing
with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF electronic filing system which will send
notification of such filing to all Counsel of record. If any of the following are not
registered with the CM/ECF electronic filing system, I certify that a copy will be
served by mailing a copy of the same by United States Mail, properly addressed and
first class postage prepaid, to wit:
David G. Kennedy, Esq.
THE KENNEDY LAW FIRM
P.O. Box 556
Mobile, Alabama 36601

Christine Cassie Hernandez, Esq.

P.O. Box 66174
Mobile, Alabama 36660

s/ Mark S. Boardman
Of Counsel