Epstein Secrets

ule 17(c) is to facilitate the trial by designating a time and place prior to trial to obtain and inspect evidentiary material. See United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 698-99 (1974) (citing Bowman Dairy Co. v. United States, 341 U.S. 214, 220 (1951)). It is not intended to provide an additional mean

e Government's briefing regardless of standing as part of its duty to ensure that the subpoena meets the requirements of Nixon. See United States v. Bergstein, No. I6-CR-746 (PKC), 2017 WL 6887596, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2017). But ex parte Rule 17(c) subpoenas are possible in some circumstances if just

ule 17(c) is to facilitate the trial by designating a time and place prior to trial to obtain and inspect evidentiary material. See United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 698-99 (1974) (citing Bowman Dairy Co. v. United States, 341 U.S. 214, 220 (1951)). It is not intended to provide an additional mean

e Government's briefing regardless of standing as part of its duty to ensure that the subpoena meets the requirements of Nixon. See United States v. Bergstein, No. I6-CR-746 (PKC), 2017 WL 6887596, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2017). But ex parte Rule 17(c) subpoenas are possible in some circumstances if just

ule of Criminal Procedure 17(c)(2) permits the court to quash a subpoena "if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive." Under United States v. Nixon, the party requesting the subpoena has the burden of showing "(1) that the documents are evidentiary and relevant; (2) that they are not otherwise

in, J.), as amended (Feb. 20, 2008)—has suggested applying a different standard, and that standard has generally been rejected. See United States v. Bergstein, 16-CR-746 (PKC), 2017 WL 6887596, at '4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2017) (Castel, J.) ("'iT]he overwhelming majority of district courts in the Second Circ

ule 17(c) is to facilitate the trial by designating a time and place prior to trial to obtain and inspect evidentiary material. See United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 698-99 (1974) (citing Bowman Dairy Co. v. United States, 341 U.S. 214, 220 (1951)). It is not intended to provide an additional mean

e Government's briefing regardless of standing as part of its duty to ensure that the subpoena meets the requirements of Nixon. See United States v. Bergstein, No. I6-CR-746 (PKC), 2017 WL 6887596, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2017). But ex parte Rule 17(c) subpoenas are possible in some circumstances if just

erns nonparty subpoenas in criminal proceedings. Rule 17(c) "was not intended to provide a means of discovery for criminal cases." United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 698 (1974); see also, e.g., United States v. Barnes, 560 F. App'x 36, 39 (2d Cir. 2014) ("Rule 17 subpoenas are properly used to obta

Defendant can therefore procure from the Government. Thus, a Rule 17(c) subpoena to BSF for those documents is improper. See, e.g., United States v. Bergstein, No. 16 Cr. 746 (PKC), 2017 WL 6887596, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2017) ("When `many' of the subpoenaed materials are obtainable through the discove

bly 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 subpo

the Government has various disclosure obligations. United States v. Cole, No. 19 Cr. 869 (ER), 2021 WL 912425, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2021); see Bergstein, 2017 WL 6887596, at *3. Finally, the Government has standing to challenge subpoenas that call for its own communications. See United States v. Cart

ule 17(c) is to facilitate the trial by designating a time and place prior to trial to obtain and inspect evidentiary material. See United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 698-99 (1974) (citing Bowman Dairy Co. v. United States, 341 U.S. 214, 220 (1951)). It is not intended to provide an additional mean

e Government's briefing regardless of standing as part of its duty to ensure that the subpoena meets the requirements of Nixon. See United States v. Bergstein, No. I6-CR-746 (PKC), 2017 WL 6887596, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2017). But ex parte Rule 17(c) subpoenas are possible in some circumstances if just

bly 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 subpo

) (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 EFTA00022030 --- PAGE BREAK --- Page 5 Cr. 746 (PKC), 2017 WL 6887596, at *2-*3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2017) ("Preventing the undue harassm