Epstein Secrets

is improper because investigative files often contain many documents that arc inadmissible on hearsay or other grounds. See. e.g., United States v. Boyle, No. 08 CR 523 (CM), 2009 WL 484436, at •2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2009) (McMahon, J.) (quashing subpoena for investigative file as overbroad because al

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

n's requirement that subpoenaed materials must not be otherwise procurable in advance of trial by the exercise of due diligence."); United States v. Boyle, No. 08 Cr. 523 (CM), 2009 WL 484436, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2009) (quashing a 17(c) subpoena where it was "likely that many of the documents tha

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

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

g 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 subp

) (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

g 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 subp