DOJ-OGR-00002892.jpg
783 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
2
Organizations
2
Locations
8
Events
6
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
783 KB
Summary
This legal document, page 3 of a filing from April 5, 2021, discusses the legal standard for obtaining documents via a subpoena under Rule 17(c). It heavily references the precedent set in 'United States v. Nixon', emphasizing that a request for documents must be made in good faith, be specific, and not constitute a general 'fishing expedition'. The document argues that courts require a stringent showing that the requested materials are relevant, admissible, and specifically identified, rather than just potentially useful to a case.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Nixon | Party in a cited legal case |
Mentioned in the case 'United States v. Nixon', which established the 'Nixon test' for subpoenas.
|
| Skelos | Party in a cited legal case |
Mentioned in the case 'United States v. Skelos'.
|
| Pena | Party in a cited legal case |
Mentioned in the case 'United States v. Pena'.
|
| Tucker | Party in a cited legal case |
Mentioned in the case 'United States v. Tucker'.
|
| Yian | Party in a cited legal case |
Mentioned in the case 'United States v. Yian'.
|
| Cuthbertson | Party in a cited legal case |
Mentioned in the case 'United States v. Cuthbertson'.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States | government agency |
Party in multiple cited legal cases, such as 'United States v. Nixon'.
|
| RW Prof’l Leasing Servs. Corp. | company |
Party in the cited legal case 'United States v. RW Prof’l Leasing Servs. Corp.'
|
Timeline (8 events)
1974
Decision in the case United States v. Nixon, establishing a test for subpoenas.
2005
Decision in the case United States v. RW Prof’l Leasing Servs. Corp.
E.D.N.Y
Relationships (6)
Cited in the legal case 'United States v. Nixon'.
Cited in the legal case 'United States v. Skelos'.
Cited in the legal case 'United States v. Pena'.
Cited in the legal case 'United States v. Tucker'.
Cited in the legal case 'United States v. Yian'.
Cited in the legal case 'United States v. Cuthbertson'.
Key Quotes (5)
"application is made in good faith and is not intended as a general “fishing expedition.”"Source
— United States v. Nixon
(Describing the fourth condition for a party to obtain production and inspection of materials before trial.)
DOJ-OGR-00002892.jpg
Quote #1
"call[s] for the production of the entire investigative file and is accurately described as a fishing expedition"Source
— United States v. Yian
(Reasoning for quashing a subpoena in the Yian case.)
DOJ-OGR-00002892.jpg
Quote #2
"[T]est for enforcement is whether the subpoena constitutes a good faith effort to obtain identified evidence rather than a general ‘fishing expedition’ that attempts to use the rule as a discovery device."Source
— United States v. Cuthbertson
(Defining the test for enforcing a subpoena under Rule 17(c).)
DOJ-OGR-00002892.jpg
Quote #3
"insufficient” for a party to show only that the subpoenaed documents “are potentially relevant or may be admissible,"Source
— United States v. RW Prof’l Leasing Servs. Corp.
(Stating that mere potential relevance is not enough to justify a subpoena for documents.)
DOJ-OGR-00002892.jpg
Quote #4
"[A] mere hope that the documents, if produced, may contain evidence favorable to the defendant’s case will not suffice."Source
— Unknown (legal principle)
(Explaining that Rule 17(c) requires a showing that materials are currently admissible, not just potentially helpful.)
DOJ-OGR-00002892.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,330 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 195 Filed 04/05/21 Page 3 of 11
Page 3
of due diligence: (3) that the party cannot properly prepare for trial
without such production and inspection in advance of trial and that
the failure to obtain such inspection may tend unreasonably to delay
the trial; and (4) that the application is made in good faith and is not
intended as a general “fishing expedition.”
without such production and inspection in advance of trial and that
the failure to obtain such inspection may tend unreasonably to delay
the trial; and (4) that the application is made in good faith and is not
intended as a general “fishing expedition.”
United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 699-700 (1974) (footnote omitted); see United States v.
Skelos, 988 F.3d 645, 661 (2d Cir. 2021) (affirming a decision to quash subpoenas through
application of Nixon); United States v. Pena, No. 15 Cr. 551 (AJN), 2016 WL 8735699, at *1-*2
(S.D.N.Y. Feb. 12, 2016) (applying Nixon, rather than the “more liberal standard” of United States
v. Tucker, 249 F.R.D. 58 (S.D.N.Y. 2008), to the propriety of a Rule 17(c) subpoena).
Skelos, 988 F.3d 645, 661 (2d Cir. 2021) (affirming a decision to quash subpoenas through
application of Nixon); United States v. Pena, No. 15 Cr. 551 (AJN), 2016 WL 8735699, at *1-*2
(S.D.N.Y. Feb. 12, 2016) (applying Nixon, rather than the “more liberal standard” of United States
v. Tucker, 249 F.R.D. 58 (S.D.N.Y. 2008), to the propriety of a Rule 17(c) subpoena).
The Nixon test is demanding. The defendant must establish that the defense’s “application
is made in good faith and is not intended as a general ‘fishing expedition.’” Nixon, 418 U.S. at
700; United States v. Yian, No. 94 Cr. 719 (DLC), 1995 WL 614563, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 19,
1995) (quashing subpoena that “call[s] for the production of the entire investigative file and is
accurately described as a fishing expedition”); United States v. Cuthbertson, 630 F.2d 139, 144
(3d Cir. 1980) (“[T]est for enforcement is whether the subpoena constitutes a good faith effort to
obtain identified evidence rather than a general ‘fishing expedition’ that attempts to use the rule as
a discovery device.” (emphasis added)). Indeed, because the Rule poses such a risk of abuse and
misuse, courts are stringent in holding those seeking to obtain documents to Rule 17(c) to their
burden of demonstrating that the documents sought are (1) relevant, (2) admissible, (3) specifically
identified, and (4) not otherwise procurable, and it is “insufficient” for a party to show only that
the subpoenaed documents “are potentially relevant or may be admissible,” United States v. RW
Prof’l Leasing Servs. Corp., 228 F.R.D. 158, 162 (E.D.N.Y 2005) (emphasis added). “[A] mere
hope that the documents, if produced, may contain evidence favorable to the defendant’s case will
not suffice. Rule 17(c) requires a showing that the materials sought are currently admissible in
is made in good faith and is not intended as a general ‘fishing expedition.’” Nixon, 418 U.S. at
700; United States v. Yian, No. 94 Cr. 719 (DLC), 1995 WL 614563, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 19,
1995) (quashing subpoena that “call[s] for the production of the entire investigative file and is
accurately described as a fishing expedition”); United States v. Cuthbertson, 630 F.2d 139, 144
(3d Cir. 1980) (“[T]est for enforcement is whether the subpoena constitutes a good faith effort to
obtain identified evidence rather than a general ‘fishing expedition’ that attempts to use the rule as
a discovery device.” (emphasis added)). Indeed, because the Rule poses such a risk of abuse and
misuse, courts are stringent in holding those seeking to obtain documents to Rule 17(c) to their
burden of demonstrating that the documents sought are (1) relevant, (2) admissible, (3) specifically
identified, and (4) not otherwise procurable, and it is “insufficient” for a party to show only that
the subpoenaed documents “are potentially relevant or may be admissible,” United States v. RW
Prof’l Leasing Servs. Corp., 228 F.R.D. 158, 162 (E.D.N.Y 2005) (emphasis added). “[A] mere
hope that the documents, if produced, may contain evidence favorable to the defendant’s case will
not suffice. Rule 17(c) requires a showing that the materials sought are currently admissible in
DOJ-OGR-00002892
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document