Epstein Secrets

es now believe in good faith that the May 20 Order is a final appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and the doctrine set forth in United States v. Cuthbertson, 651 F.2d 189 (3d Cir. 1981) (the "Cuthbertson Doctrine"); and WHEREAS, in the alternative, if the Second Circuit does not find the May 20 Order t

e doctrine set forth in United States v. Cuthbertson, 651 F.2d 189 (3d Cir. 1981) (the "Cuthbertson Doctrine"); and WHEREAS, in the alternative, if the Second Circuit does not find the May 20 Order to be a final appealable order, Doe consents to the Daily News Parties' motion for issuance of an order certifying t

with the court reviewing these documents in camera and then disclosing any admissible documents only after the witness testifies. United States v. Cuthbertson, 630 F.2d 139, 145 (3d Cir. 1980) (affirming decision of district court requiring "pretrial production to the court" in order "to avoid unnecessary

omitted). Although the Nixon Court did not decide whether this four-part test applies to subpoenas served on third-parties in particular, courts in the Second Circuit have almost unanimously applied Nixon to subpoenas served on third-parties. See, e.g., United States v. Pena, No. I5-CR- 551 (AJN), 2016 WL 8735699

present systems of [*914] criminal justice." 7°? Indeed, 289 75 F.3d 1275, 1283-84 (8th Cir. 1996). 20 [dat £283. 291 Td. (citing United States v. Cuthbertson, 630 F.2d 139, 146 (3d Cir. 1980)). 292 548 A.2d 408, 415 (Vt. 1988). 293 Td. at 413. 294 Td. at 414-15. 295 Iq. 296 Fd. at 415. 297 Weatherford

ongressional determination, blocking defense efforts to obtain pretrial discovery about government witnesses. For example, in United States v. Coppa, the Second Circuit overturned the district court's approval of a scheduling order requiring the government to identify its witnesses in advance of trial. +3? The distri

discovery in the broadest terms." Bowman Dairy Co. v. United States, 341 U.S. 214, 220 (1951); see also United States v. Purin, 486 F.2d 1363, 1368 (2d Cir. 1973) ("A subpoena duces tecum in a criminal case is not intended as a means of discovery."). It is not sufficient for a party to show only that th

ally to the specific requests for them, as discussed above. EFTA00010124 --- PAGE BREAK --- Page 8 rule as a discovery device." United States v. Cuthbertson, 630 F.2d 139, 144 (3d Cir. 1980); see Ulbricht, 858 F.3d at 109. Such an expedition is precluded by Nixon. 418 U.S. at 700. III. Conclusion For

discovery in the broadest terms." Bowman Dairy Co. v. United States, 341 U.S. 214, 220 (1951); see also United States v. Purin, 486 F.2d 1363, 1368 (2d Cir. 1973) ("A subpoena duces tecum in a criminal case is not intended as a means of discovery."). Unlike the rules of civil procedure— permitting the is

g 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 ident ed evidence rath

discovery in the broadest terms." Bowman Dairy Co. v. United States, 341 U.S. 214, 220 (1951); see also United States v. Purin, 486 F.2d 1363, 1368 (2d Cir. 1973) ("A subpoena duces tecum in a criminal case is not intended as a means of discovery."). Unlike the rules of civil procedure— permitting the is

g 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 ident ed evidence rath