Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 5
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 9060 (2026)

Subpoenas and discovery

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  Proceedings.  In any adjudicatory proceeding for which the agency, by independent statute, has authority to issue subpoenas, any party shall be entitled as of right to their issuance in the name of the agency to require the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of any evidence relating to any issue of fact in the proceeding.  
In any proceeding in which the conducting agency lacks independent authority to issue subpoenas, any party may request the issuance of a subpoena by the agency, and the agency is hereby authorized to issue the same if it first obtains the approval of the Attorney General or of any deputy attorney general. Such approval shall be given when the testimony or evidence sought is relevant to any issue of fact in the proceeding.  
When properly authorized, subpoenas may be issued by the agency or by any person designated by the agency for that purpose, in accordance with the following provisions:  
A. The agency may prescribe the form of subpoena, but it shall adhere, insofar as practicable, to the form used in civil cases before the courts. Witnesses shall be subpoenaed only within the territorial limits and in the same manner as witnesses in civil cases before the courts, unless another territory or manner is provided by law. Witnesses subpoenaed shall be paid the same fees for attendance and travel as in civil cases before the courts. Such fees shall be paid by the party requesting the subpoena.   [PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW).]
B. Any subpoena issued shall show on its face the name and address of the party at whose request it was issued.   [PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW).]
C. Any witness subpoenaed may petition the agency to vacate or modify a subpoena issued in its name. The agency shall give prompt notice to the party who requested issuance of the subpoena. After such investigation as the agency considers appropriate, it may grant the petition in whole or in part upon a finding that the testimony or the evidence whose production is required does not relate with reasonable directness to any matter in question, or that a subpoena for the attendance of a witness or the production of evidence is unreasonable or oppressive or has not been issued a reasonable period in advance of the time when the evidence is requested.   [PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW).]
D. Failure to comply with a subpoena lawfully issued in the name of the agency and not revoked or modified by the agency as provided in this section shall be punishable as for contempt of court.   [PL 1977, c. 694, §36 (AMD).]
[PL 1977, c. 694, §36 (AMD).]
2.  Adoption of rules.  Each agency having power to conduct adjudicatory proceedings may adopt rules providing for discovery to the extent and in the manner appropriate to its proceeding.  
[PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW). PL 1977, c. 694, §36 (AMD).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2004–2022 · leading case: Bruce D. Taylor v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 2016 ME 71 (Me. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bruce D. Taylor v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 2016 ME 71 (Me. 2016). “See 5 M.R.S. § 9060 (2015); 35-A M.R.S. § 1304(3) (2015); 9 C.”
Mallinckrodt LLC v. Littell, 616 F. Supp. 2d 128 (D. Me. 2009). “” 5 M.R.S.A. § 9060. The hearing is recorded, 5 M.”
Nat'l Org. for Marriage v. Comm'n on Governmental Ethics & Election Practices, 2013 ME 53 (Me. 2013). “The appellants petitioned the Commission to vacate or modify the subpoenas pursuant to 5 M.R.S. § 9060(1)(C) (2012). After the Commission rejected their contentions, they petitioned for review of the Commission’s decision in the Superior Court pursuant to M.”
Nass v. Maine Bd. of Licensure in Med. (Me. Super. Ct 2022). · cites it 4× “Nass against the Board in CV-2022­ 21, when counsel for Dr.”
Palmer v. Maine State Bd. of Nursing (Me. Super. Ct 2019). · cites it 2× “Title 5 M.R.S. § 9060(1 )(C) is the source of the reasonable directness standard utilized by the Hearing Officer.”
Nat'l Org. for Marriage v. Maine Comm'n on Governmental Ethics & Election Practices (Me. Super. Ct 2012). · cites it 2× “" 5 M.R.S.A. § 9060(1)(C). Following "such investigation as the agency considers appropriate," the Commission may grant the petition if it finds that the evidence sought through the subpoena "does not relate with reasonable directness to any matter in question.”
McDonald v. Bd. of Osteopathic Licensure (Me. Super. Ct 2004). “Pursuant to 5 MRSA §9060(1)(C), it must rule on motions to quash.”
Kane v. Comm'r of the Dep't of Health & Human Svs. (Me. Super. Ct 2008). “Contrary to Kane's claim that the evidence in the record does not support the Commissioner's decision, there is adequate evidence to show that Kane neglected the needs of the children and was emotionally abusive to them.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 9060(1) — 2 cases
Palmer v. Maine State Bd. of Nursing (Me. Super. Ct 2019). “Title 5 M.R.S. § 9060(1 )(C) is the source of the reasonable directness standard utilized by the Hearing Officer.”
Kane v. Comm'r of the Dep't of Health & Human Svs. (Me. Super. Ct 2008). “Contrary to Kane's claim that the evidence in the record does not support the Commissioner's decision, there is adequate evidence to show that Kane neglected the needs of the children and was emotionally abusive to them.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 9060(1)(0) — 1 case
Nass v. Maine Bd. of Licensure in Med. (Me. Super. Ct 2022). “Nass against the Board in CV-2022­ 21, when counsel for Dr.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 9060(1)(C) — 3 cases
Nat'l Org. for Marriage v. Comm'n on Governmental Ethics & Election Practices, 2013 ME 53 (Me. 2013). “The appellants petitioned the Commission to vacate or modify the subpoenas pursuant to 5 M.R.S. § 9060(1)(C) (2012). After the Commission rejected their contentions, they petitioned for review of the Commission’s decision in the Superior Court pursuant to M.”
McDonald v. Bd. of Osteopathic Licensure (Me. Super. Ct 2004). “Pursuant to 5 MRSA §9060(1)(C), it must rule on motions to quash.”
Nat'l Org. for Marriage v. Maine Comm'n on Governmental Ethics & Election Practices (Me. Super. Ct 2012). “" 5 M.R.S.A. § 9060(1)(C). Following "such investigation as the agency considers appropriate," the Commission may grant the petition if it finds that the evidence sought through the subpoena "does not relate with reasonable directness to any matter in question.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 9060(l)(C) — 2 cases
Nass v. Maine Bd. of Licensure in Med. (Me. Super. Ct 2022). “Nass against the Board in CV-2022­ 21, when counsel for Dr.”
Nat'l Org. for Marriage v. Maine Comm'n on Governmental Ethics & Election Practices (Me. Super. Ct 2012). “" 5 M.R.S.A. § 9060(1)(C). Following "such investigation as the agency considers appropriate," the Commission may grant the petition if it finds that the evidence sought through the subpoena "does not relate with reasonable directness to any matter in question.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.