DOJ-OGR-00002893.jpg
762 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court memorandum
File Size:
762 KB
Summary
This document is Page 4 of a legal filing (Document 195) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on April 5, 2021. The text argues that defense subpoenas asking for 'any and all' records are improper discovery requests and asserts that the Court should require the Defendant to notify the Government of any Rule 17(c) subpoena applications. It cites concerns regarding the harassment of witnesses and the protection of victim confidentiality.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
Subject of the heading regarding providing notice of Rule 17(c) applications. (Contextually Ghislaine Maxwell based o...
|
| The Government | Prosecution/Plaintiff |
Asserting legitimate interests in subpoenas issued by the defense.
|
| Witnesses/Victims | Subjects of Subpoenas |
Individuals whose personal or confidential information is being targeted by defense subpoenas.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Court |
S.D.N.Y. (Southern District of New York) mentioned in citations.
|
|
| DOJ-OGR |
Department of Justice - Office of Government Information Services (indicated in footer).
|
Timeline (1 events)
2021-04-05
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Southern District of New York, cited in case law.
|
Relationships (2)
Government arguing against Defendant's subpoena practices in court filing.
Defendant issuing subpoenas targeting information about anticipated Government witnesses.
Key Quotes (4)
"subpoenas that call for 'any' and 'all' records 'do not evince specificity' and 'read[] like a discovery request, which is not permitted under Rule 17(c).'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002893.jpg
Quote #1
"The Court Should Direct the Defendant to Provide Notice of Prior and Future Applications Under Rule 17(c) to the Government"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002893.jpg
Quote #2
"If a subpoena calls for 'personal or confidential information about a victim,' the subpoena may be served 'only by court order'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002893.jpg
Quote #3
"courts have routinely found that the Government has standing to move to quash Rule 17(c) subpoenas that target information about anticipated Government witnesses"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002893.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,304 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 195 Filed 04/05/21 Page 4 of 11
Page 4
Page 4
evidence; it cannot be used as a device to gain understanding or explanation.” United States v.
Rich, No. 83 Cr. 579 (SWK), 1984 WL 845, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 1984) (internal quotation
marks omitted) (emphasis added). Accordingly, subpoenas that call for “any” and “all” records
“do not evince specificity” and “read[] like a discovery request, which is not permitted under Rule
17(c).” Tagliaferro, 2021 WL 980004 at *3; see Pena, 2016 WL 8735699, at *3. And “[g]enerally
the need for evidence to impeach witnesses is insufficient to require its production in advance of
trial.” Nixon, 418 U.S. at 701 (citations omitted); see Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(h) (“No party may
subpoena a statement of a witness or of a prospective witness under this rule.”).
Rich, No. 83 Cr. 579 (SWK), 1984 WL 845, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 1984) (internal quotation
marks omitted) (emphasis added). Accordingly, subpoenas that call for “any” and “all” records
“do not evince specificity” and “read[] like a discovery request, which is not permitted under Rule
17(c).” Tagliaferro, 2021 WL 980004 at *3; see Pena, 2016 WL 8735699, at *3. And “[g]enerally
the need for evidence to impeach witnesses is insufficient to require its production in advance of
trial.” Nixon, 418 U.S. at 701 (citations omitted); see Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(h) (“No party may
subpoena a statement of a witness or of a prospective witness under this rule.”).
If a subpoena calls for “personal or confidential information about a victim,” the subpoena
may be served “only by court order” following “notice to the victim so that the victim can move
to quash or modify the subpoena or otherwise object.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c)(3). After a subpoena
issues, “[t]he court may direct the witness to produce the designated items in court before trial or
before they are to be offered in evidence.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c)(1). “When the items arrive, the
court may permit the parties and their attorneys to inspect all or part of them.” Id.
may be served “only by court order” following “notice to the victim so that the victim can move
to quash or modify the subpoena or otherwise object.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c)(3). After a subpoena
issues, “[t]he court may direct the witness to produce the designated items in court before trial or
before they are to be offered in evidence.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c)(1). “When the items arrive, the
court may permit the parties and their attorneys to inspect all or part of them.” Id.
II. The Court Should Direct the Defendant to Provide Notice of Prior and Future
Applications Under Rule 17(c) to the Government
Applications Under Rule 17(c) to the Government
The Government has legitimate and cognizable interests in Rule 17(c) subpoenas issued by
the defense. In particular, courts have routinely found that the Government has standing to move
to quash Rule 17(c) subpoenas that target information about anticipated Government witnesses
“based on the Government’s ‘interest in preventing any undue lengthening of the trial, any undue
harassment of the witness and his family, and any prejudicial over-emphasis on the witness’s
credibility.’” United States v. Ray, -- F.R.D. --, No. 20 Cr. 110 (LJL), 2020 WL 6939677, at *7
(S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2020) (alterations omitted) (quoting United States v. Giampa, No. 92 Cr. 437
(PKL), 1992 WL 296440, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 1992)); see United States v. Bergstein, No. 16
the defense. In particular, courts have routinely found that the Government has standing to move
to quash Rule 17(c) subpoenas that target information about anticipated Government witnesses
“based on the Government’s ‘interest in preventing any undue lengthening of the trial, any undue
harassment of the witness and his family, and any prejudicial over-emphasis on the witness’s
credibility.’” United States v. Ray, -- F.R.D. --, No. 20 Cr. 110 (LJL), 2020 WL 6939677, at *7
(S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2020) (alterations omitted) (quoting United States v. Giampa, No. 92 Cr. 437
(PKL), 1992 WL 296440, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 1992)); see United States v. Bergstein, No. 16
DOJ-OGR-00002893
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document