DOJ-OGR-00021542.jpg
636 KB
Extraction Summary
7
People
3
Organizations
2
Locations
3
Events
3
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
636 KB
Summary
This legal document is a court filing from February 25, 2022, detailing the court's denial of a defendant's request to subpoena social media companies for the communications of 'Juror 50'. The court rules the request is a speculative "fishing expedition" and is procedurally improper under the Stored Communications Act (SCA), which does not permit a defendant in a criminal case to subpoena such content directly from providers like Facebook or Instagram.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ianniello |
Cited in the case Ianniello, 866 F.2d at 544.
|
|
| Juror 50 | Juror |
The subject of the Defendant's request for communications and investigation into potential bias.
|
| Moon |
Cited in the case Moon, 718 F.2d at 1234.
|
|
| Moten |
Quoted via the Moon case citation (quoting Moten, 582 F.2d at 667).
|
|
| Wayne LaFave | Author |
Author of the legal text 'Criminal Procedure' cited in the document.
|
| Nix | Party in a lawsuit |
Mentioned in the case citation United States v. Nix.
|
| Wint | Party in a lawsuit |
Mentioned in the case citation Facebook, Inc. v. Wint.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Microsoft Corp. | company |
Mentioned in a case citation regarding a warrant to search an email account controlled by the company.
|
| Facebook, Inc. | company |
Mentioned as a social media company that cannot be subpoenaed by a defendant for account content under the Stored Com...
|
| company |
Mentioned as a social media platform whose content a defendant is not permitted to subpoena under the Stored Communic...
|
Timeline (3 events)
2022-02-25
The Court denied the Defendant's requests to subpoena social media companies.
Court
Defendant
The Defendant requested subpoenas directed at social media companies for Juror 50's communications.
Defendant
Relationships (3)
The Defendant is investigating Juror 50's communications and potential bias by requesting subpoenas for their social media content.
Defendant
→
legal
→
Court
The Defendant made a request to the Court for subpoenas, which the Court denied.
Defendant
→
adversarial
→
Government
The document distinguishes between the Government, which can request disclosure under the Stored Communications Act, and private parties like the Defendant, who cannot.
Key Quotes (3)
"limited to only what is absolutely necessary to determine the facts with precision."Source
— Ianniello case
(A legal standard cited by the court for what must be shown.)
DOJ-OGR-00021542.jpg
Quote #1
"the opportunity to ‘conduct a fishing expedition.’"Source
— Moon case (quoting Moten)
(The court's characterization of the Defendant's request, which it will not grant.)
DOJ-OGR-00021542.jpg
Quote #2
"[T]he [SCA] does not permit a defendant in a criminal case to subpoena the content of a Facebook or Instagram account."Source
— United States v. Nix case
(A legal principle cited to show that the Defendant's request is procedurally improper.)
DOJ-OGR-00021542.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,094 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page112 of 217
SA-366
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 620 Filed 02/25/22 Page 18 of 21
SA-366
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN 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).
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.
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.
18
DOJ-OGR-00021542
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document