But we have several issues. One is that when we filed our motion to quash last week, quite honestly, we thought we did it in a timely fashion because we filed it only after we were served with the subpoena. Your Honor summarily dismissed that motion to quash, so, in effect, if my reporters were to be called upon to testify today by the plaintiffs, they're undressed.
We were served with a subpoena after we filed the motion to quash.
The statement is incorrect because the motion to quash was filed after the subpoena was served. The system might have been fooled because of the way I wrote the statement (rearranging the order of the original sentence and introducing the change in timing).
( z1 serve :ARG1 ( z2 subpoena ) :ARG2 ( z3 we ) :time ( z4 after :op ( z5 file :ARG0 z3 :ARG1 ( z6 motion :ARG1-of ( z7 quash ) ) ) ) )