The defendant municipality brought a motion to quash the self-represented plaintiff's summons to witness of the Commissioner of Health, arguing non-compliance with the Rules of Civil Procedure and that calling the witness would be an abuse of process.
The court found that the plaintiff's confusion regarding the summons requirements was justified given the chronology of events and the defendant's late notice that it would not be calling the witness.
The court validated the service of the summons and dismissed the motion to quash, noting that the plaintiff had direct interactions with the witness, making her evidence potentially relevant, though the court cautioned the plaintiff about the parameters of examination in chief.
