DOJ-OGR-00002895.jpg
783 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing (motion/memorandum of law)
File Size:
783 KB
Summary
This document is page 6 of a legal filing (Document 195) from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on April 5, 2021. The Government is arguing that the Court should require notice for all Rule 17(c) subpoenas rather than allowing them to be issued *ex parte* (without notice), citing various legal precedents (Wey, Earls, Skelos, St. Lawrence, Boyle) to support the position that *ex parte* proceedings should only be permitted with a compelling reason. Footnotes clarify the Government's concern regarding financial institutions responding to broad subpoenas for impeachment purposes and state that this request does not apply to subpoenas returnable at trial.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government | Prosecution |
Requesting notice of all subpoenas with pretrial return dates.
|
| Wey | Defendant in cited case |
Cited in United States v. Wey regarding ex parte subpoenas.
|
| Earls | Defendant in cited case |
Cited in United States v. Earls.
|
| Skelos | Defendant in cited case |
Cited in United States v. Skelos regarding requiring notice for subpoenas.
|
| St. Lawrence | Defendant in cited case |
Cited in United States v. St. Lawrence.
|
| Boyle | Defendant in cited case |
Cited in United States v. Boyle.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Court Southern District of New York |
Jurisdiction where the filing and cited cases occurred (S.D.N.Y.).
|
|
| Department of Justice |
Indicated by footer 'DOJ-OGR'.
|
|
| Second Circuit Court of Appeals |
Cited as '2d Cir.'.
|
Timeline (1 events)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Southern District of New York
|
Relationships (1)
Government
→
Legal Adversaries
→
Defense
Implicit in the motion requesting notice of subpoenas to prevent ex parte actions.
Key Quotes (3)
"Accordingly, the Government respectfully requests notice of all subpoenas with pretrial return dates issued or sought to be issued under Rule 17(c)."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002895.jpg
Quote #1
"When courts have considered the issue, however, many have directed that the parties should give each other notice of Rule 17(c) subpoenas unless a party can justify proceeding ex parte."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002895.jpg
Quote #2
"For example, a financial institution may lack sufficient knowledge about the case or motivation to expend the resources to move to quash what appears to be a routine subpoena..."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002895.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,318 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 195 Filed 04/05/21 Page 6 of 11
Page 6
case or motivation to move to quash an otherwise improper subpoena.² Accordingly, the
Government respectfully requests notice of all subpoenas with pretrial return dates issued or sought
to be issued under Rule 17(c).³
Government respectfully requests notice of all subpoenas with pretrial return dates issued or sought
to be issued under Rule 17(c).³
While, as the Court noted in its Order, Rule 17(c) subpoenas are frequently issued ex parte
in this district, the issue is rarely litigated. See, e.g., United States v. States v. Wey, 252 F. Supp. 3d
237, 243 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (noting, without extended discussion, that subpoena had issued upon ex
parte application); United States v. Earls, No. 03 Cr.0364 (NRB), 2004 WL 350725, at *6 (S.D.N.Y.
Feb. 25, 2004) (noting that the defendant may seek subpoenas ex parte). When courts have considered
the issue, however, many have directed that the parties should give each other notice of Rule 17(c)
subpoenas unless a party can justify proceeding ex parte. See United States v. Skelos, No. 15 Cr.
317 (KMW), 2018 WL 2254538, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. May 17, 2018) (explaining that courts have
permitted ex parte requests “where a reason existed for doing so,” and requiring notice “[t]o further
reduce the risk that trial will be delayed, unless a party has a compelling reason for proceeding ex
parte with a subpoena request”), aff’d, 988 F.3d 645 (2d Cir. 2021); United States v. St. Lawrence,
16 Cr. 259 (CS), Dkt. No. 66 at 6 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2016) (requiring motions for Rule 17(c)
subpoenas and permitting ex parte applications “if the movant can articulate a reason why it should
be”); United States v. Boyle, No. 08 Cr. 523 (CM), 2009 WL 484436, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24,
2009) (requiring noticed motions for Rule 17(c) subpoenas to “assur[e] that such subpoenas are
not abused or used for impermissible discovery,” and permitting ex parte applications “where a
in this district, the issue is rarely litigated. See, e.g., United States v. States v. Wey, 252 F. Supp. 3d
237, 243 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (noting, without extended discussion, that subpoena had issued upon ex
parte application); United States v. Earls, No. 03 Cr.0364 (NRB), 2004 WL 350725, at *6 (S.D.N.Y.
Feb. 25, 2004) (noting that the defendant may seek subpoenas ex parte). When courts have considered
the issue, however, many have directed that the parties should give each other notice of Rule 17(c)
subpoenas unless a party can justify proceeding ex parte. See United States v. Skelos, No. 15 Cr.
317 (KMW), 2018 WL 2254538, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. May 17, 2018) (explaining that courts have
permitted ex parte requests “where a reason existed for doing so,” and requiring notice “[t]o further
reduce the risk that trial will be delayed, unless a party has a compelling reason for proceeding ex
parte with a subpoena request”), aff’d, 988 F.3d 645 (2d Cir. 2021); United States v. St. Lawrence,
16 Cr. 259 (CS), Dkt. No. 66 at 6 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2016) (requiring motions for Rule 17(c)
subpoenas and permitting ex parte applications “if the movant can articulate a reason why it should
be”); United States v. Boyle, No. 08 Cr. 523 (CM), 2009 WL 484436, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24,
2009) (requiring noticed motions for Rule 17(c) subpoenas to “assur[e] that such subpoenas are
not abused or used for impermissible discovery,” and permitting ex parte applications “where a
² For example, a financial institution may lack sufficient knowledge about the case or motivation
to expend the resources to move to quash what appears to be a routine subpoena that broadly seeks
financial records for a Government cooperator or lay witness to be used for impeachment purposes,
notwithstanding the fact that such a subpoena may run afoul of the Nixon standard.
³ The Government is not seeking notice of subpoenas returnable at trial.
to expend the resources to move to quash what appears to be a routine subpoena that broadly seeks
financial records for a Government cooperator or lay witness to be used for impeachment purposes,
notwithstanding the fact that such a subpoena may run afoul of the Nixon standard.
³ The Government is not seeking notice of subpoenas returnable at trial.
DOJ-OGR-00002895
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document