Epstein Secrets

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

F. Supp. 3d 237, 254 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (Nathan, J.) (noting that sufficiency of subpoenas was "determined in ex parte proceedings"); United States v. Earls, No. 03 CR. 0364 (NRB), 2004 WI, 350725, at •6 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2004) (Buchwald, J.) (denying request to permit defendant to serve Rule 17(c) sub

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

52 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 cons

at *8 (S.D.N.Y. May 17, 2018), aff'd, 988 F.3d 645 (2d Cir. 2021); United States v. Wey, 252 F. Supp. 3d 237, 243 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); United States v. Earls, No. 03-CR-0364 (NRB), 2004 WL 350725, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2004); United States v. Reyes, 162 F.R.D. 468, 470 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). Rule 17(c)(3) p

he service of the subpoena. If the victim objects, the Court will then determine whether to modify or quash the subpoena, including on grounds that Nixon was not satisfied."). In advance of noticing an appearance and filing, the law firm shall meet and confer with defense counsel to see if any issues