DOJ-OGR-00009559.jpg
701 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
6
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court order / legal opinion (page 18 of 21)
File Size:
701 KB
Summary
This page is from a court order (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely *US v. Maxwell*) denying the Defendant's request to subpoena social media companies for Juror 50's communications. The Court rules that the request is a 'fishing expedition' and procedurally improper under the Stored Communications Act (SCA), which generally prohibits private parties (like the Defendant) from subpoenaing content from providers like Facebook or Instagram; only the Government may do so with a warrant.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
Referenced as the party requesting subpoenas and communications regarding Juror 50. (Note: Case number 1:20-cr-00330-...
|
| Juror 50 | Juror |
Subject of the Defendant's inquiry regarding potential bias, questionnaire answers, and post-trial interviews.
|
| Wayne LaFave | Author/Legal Scholar |
Cited in 'Criminal Procedure' regarding the Stored Communications Act.
|
Organizations (6)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Social media companies |
Targets of the Defendant's requested subpoenas.
|
|
| Microsoft Corp. |
Cited in a legal precedent (Matter of Warrant...).
|
|
|
Cited in legal precedent and explicitly mentioned as a platform the defendant cannot subpoena directly.
|
||
|
Explicitly mentioned as a platform the defendant cannot subpoena directly.
|
||
| The Government |
The prosecution; noted as the only party allowed to request disclosure under the SCA.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (inferred from footer DOJ-OGR).
|
Timeline (2 events)
Relationships (2)
Defendant is requesting subpoenas regarding Juror 50's communications to prove bias.
Text mentions 'Government raised the Act in its briefing' opposing the Defendant's requests.
Key Quotes (4)
"The Court will not grant the Defendant “the opportunity to ‘conduct a fishing expedition.’”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00009559.jpg
Quote #1
"Those requests for social media content are subject to the Stored Communications Act... which requires an additional factual showing for the Court to order disclosure"Source
DOJ-OGR-00009559.jpg
Quote #2
"And only the Government, not private parties like the Defendant, may request disclosure pursuant to the Act."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009559.jpg
Quote #3
"[SCA] does not permit a defendant in a criminal case to subpoena the content of a Facebook or Instagram account."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009559.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,034 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 620 Filed 02/25/22 Page 18 of 21
must be “limited to only what is absolutely necessary to determine the facts with precision.”
Ianniello, 866 F.2d at 544. The Defendant can only speculate that the requested communications
between Juror 50 and unknown persons and entities would shed any light on Juror 50’s answers
to the questionnaire and his bias before the trial at the time of voir dire. Nor has the Defendant
explained why Juror 50’s receipt of financial payment for interviews after the trial, if true, would
be probative of his inclination to not disclose at voir dire prior to trial. The Court will not grant
the Defendant “the opportunity to ‘conduct a fishing expedition.’” Moon, 718 F.2d at 1234
(quoting Moten, 582 F.2d at 667).
Ianniello, 866 F.2d at 544. The Defendant can only speculate that the requested communications
between Juror 50 and unknown persons and entities would shed any light on Juror 50’s answers
to the questionnaire and his bias before the trial at the time of voir dire. Nor has the Defendant
explained why Juror 50’s receipt of financial payment for interviews after the trial, if true, would
be probative of his inclination to not disclose at voir dire prior to trial. The Court will not grant
the Defendant “the opportunity to ‘conduct a fishing expedition.’” Moon, 718 F.2d at 1234
(quoting Moten, 582 F.2d at 667).
Moreover, the Defendant’s requested subpoenas directed at social media companies who
have custody of Juror 50’s communications, comments, and posts are procedurally improper.
Those requests for social media content are subject to the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C.
§§ 2701–11, which requires an additional factual showing for the Court to order disclosure, see 2
Wayne LaFave et al., Criminal Procedure §§ 4.8(b), 4.8(d) (4th ed. 2021); Matter of Warrant to
Search a Certain E-Mail Acct. Controlled & Maintained by Microsoft Corp., 829 F.3d 197, 206
(2d Cir. 2016), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 138 S. Ct. 1186 (2018). And only the
Government, not private parties like the Defendant, may request disclosure pursuant to the Act.
United States v. Nix, 251 F. Supp. 3d 555, 559 (W.D.N.Y. 2017) (“[T]he [SCA] does not permit
a defendant in a criminal case to subpoena the content of a Facebook or Instagram account.”);
Facebook, Inc. v. Wint, 199 A.3d 625, 629 (D.C. 2019) (collecting cases). Though the
Government raised the Act in its briefing, the Defendant does not acknowledge it or purport to
show she is entitled to make a request. Accordingly, the requests as to the listed social media
companies are denied.
have custody of Juror 50’s communications, comments, and posts are procedurally improper.
Those requests for social media content are subject to the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C.
§§ 2701–11, which requires an additional factual showing for the Court to order disclosure, see 2
Wayne LaFave et al., Criminal Procedure §§ 4.8(b), 4.8(d) (4th ed. 2021); Matter of Warrant to
Search a Certain E-Mail Acct. Controlled & Maintained by Microsoft Corp., 829 F.3d 197, 206
(2d Cir. 2016), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 138 S. Ct. 1186 (2018). And only the
Government, not private parties like the Defendant, may request disclosure pursuant to the Act.
United States v. Nix, 251 F. Supp. 3d 555, 559 (W.D.N.Y. 2017) (“[T]he [SCA] does not permit
a defendant in a criminal case to subpoena the content of a Facebook or Instagram account.”);
Facebook, Inc. v. Wint, 199 A.3d 625, 629 (D.C. 2019) (collecting cases). Though the
Government raised the Act in its briefing, the Defendant does not acknowledge it or purport to
show she is entitled to make a request. Accordingly, the requests as to the listed social media
companies are denied.
18
DOJ-OGR-00009559
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document