Epstein Secrets

ist. Attys. (Kevin Dillon, Eric County Dist. Atty., of counsel), Buffalo, NY. Russell P. Buscaglia, Asst. U.S. Atty. (Dennis C. Vasco, U.S. Atty., W.D.N.Y., of counsel), Buffalo, NY. DECISION AND ORDER ARCARA, District Judge. Presently before the Court is a motion to quash a subpoena duces !cum, pur

ies from obtaining the records through a subpoena. The cases of In re Grand Jury Subpoena for New York State Income Tax Records, 468 F.Supp. 575 (N.D.N.Y.), appeal dismissed, 607 F.2d 566 (2d Cir.1979), and In re Grand Jury Subpoena for the Prod. of Certain New York State Sales Tax Records, 382 F

[1][2][3] It is well-established that a federal grand jury is to be afforded wide latitude in conducting its investigation. See United States v. R. Enters., Inc., 498 U.S. 292, 297-98, 111 S.Ct. 722, 726, 112 L.Ed.2d 795 (1991); United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 94 S.Ct. 613, 38 L.Ed.2d 561

es in particular cases when to do so would not substantially burden federal policies. See, e.g., Lora v. Board of Education, 74 F.R.D. 565, 576 (E.D.N.Y.); cf. ACLU v. Finch, 638 F.2d 1336, 1342-45 (5th Cir. Unit A Mar. 1981). FN6. In their briefs, appellants suggest that the privilege they assert h

ist. Attys. (Kevin Dillon, Eric County Dist. Atty., of counsel), Buffalo, NY. Russell P. Buscaglia, Asst. U.S. Atty. (Dennis C. Vacco, U.S. Atty., W.D.N.Y., of counsel), Buffalo, NY. DECISION AND ORDER ARCARA, District Judge. Presently before the Court is a motion to quash a subpoena duces team purs

cordance with its broad mandate to investigate possible criminal activity, a federal grand jury has few limitations placed on its subpoena powers. R. Enters., 498 U.S. at 297-98, Ill S.Ct. at 726. "A grand jury 'may compel the production of evidence or the testimony of witnesses as it considers appropr

ist. Attys. (Kevin Dillon, Erie County Dist. Atty., of counsel). Buffalo. NY. Russell P. Buscaglia, Asst. U.S. Atty. (Dennis C. Vacco, U.S. Atty., W.D.N.Y., of counsel), Buffalo, NY. DECISION AND ORDER ARCARA, District Judge. Presently before the Court is a motion to quash a subpoena duces recum. pu

es in particular cases when to do so would not substantially burden federal policies. See, e.g., Lora v. Board of Education, 74 F.R.D. 565, 576 (E.D.N.Y.); cf. ACLU v. Flitch, 638 F.2d 1336. 1342-45 (5th Cir. Unit A Mar. 1981). F146. In their briefs, appellants suggest that the privilege they asser

[1][2][3] It is well-established that a federal grand jury is to be afforded wide latitude in conducting its investigation. See United States v. R. Enters., Inc.. 498 U.S. 292. 297-98, Ill S.Ct. 722, 726, 112 L.Ed.2d 795 (1991); United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 94 S.Ct. 613, 38 L.Ed.2d 561

Dist. Attys. (Kevin Dillon, Erie County Dist. Any., of counsel). Buffalo, NY. Russell P. Buscaglia, Asst. U.S. Atty. (Dennis C. Vacco, U.S. Any., W.D.N.Y., of counsel), Buffalo, NY. DECISION AND ORDER ARCARA, District Judge. Presently before the Court is a motion to quash a subpoena duces recum, pu

es in particular cases when to do so would not substantially burden federal policies. See, e.g., Lora v. Board of Education, 74 F.R.D. 565, 576 (E.D.N.Y.); cf. ACLU v. Finch, 638 F.2d 1336. 1342-45 (5th Cir. Unit A Mar. 1981). P146. In their briefs, appellants suggest that the privilege they assert

[1][2][3] It is well-established that a federal grand jury is to be afforded wide latitude in conducting its investigation. See United States v. R. Enters., Inc., 498 U.S. 292, 297-98, 111 S.Q. 722, 726, 112 L.Ed.2d 795 (1991); United Stares v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 94 S.Ct. 613, 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (

Dist. Attys. (Kevin Dillon, Erie County Dist. Atty., of counsel), Buffalo, NY. Russell P. Buscaglia, Asst. U.S. Any. (Dennis C. Vacco, U.S. Atty., W.D.N.Y., of counsel), Buffalo, NY. DECISION AND ORDER ARCARA, District Judge. Presently before the Court is a motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum. pu

ies from obtaining the records through a subpoena. The cases of In re Grand Jury Subpoena for New York State Income Tax Records, 468 F.Supp. 575 (N.D.N.Y.), appeal dismissed, 607 F.24 566 (2d Cir.1979), and In re Grand Jury Subpoena for the Prod. of Certain New York State Sales Tax Records, 382 F

(11(21(3) It is well-established that a federal grand jury is to be afforded wide latitude in conducting its investigation. See United States v. R. Enters., Inc.. 498 U.S. 292, 297.98, Ill S.Ct. 722, 726, 112 L.Ed.2d 795 (1991); United States v. Calandra. 414 U.S. 338, 94 S.Ct. 613. 38 L.Ed.2d 561

dispute that it never conferred with the victims and kept the Agreement secret. See Gov't En Banc Brief at 5. 10 In July 2019, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (`SDNY") had unsealed an indictment charging Epstein with a sex-trafficking conspiracy and substantive sex trafficking involving conduct that occur

n motion made promptly, the court may quash or modify the subpoena if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive."); see also United States v. R. Enters., 498 U.S. 292, 297-98, III S.Ct. 722, 112 L.Ed.2d 795 (1991) (distinguishing the standard for judicial review of motions to suppress subpoenas is