Epstein Secrets

ssue unnecessarily demanded documents irrelevant to the grand jury inquiry and was, therefore, unreasonably broad under Rule 17. Likewise, in In re Amato, 2005 WL 1429743 at *11-*12 (D. Me. June 17, 2005), the Court, relying on a number of cases dealing with searches of computers pursuant to warrants

ent the government from using a grand jury subpoena to conduct an unfettered general search of the contents of the computers. See United States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc., 473 F.3d 915, 938-39 (9th Cir. 2006) ("Mt is not reasonable to allow the government to. seize an indeterminately bounded array of computer data on

ssue unnecessarily demanded documents irrelevant to the grand jury inquiry and was, therefore, unreasonably broad under Rule 17. Likewise, in In re Amato, 2005 WL 1429743 at *11-*12 (D. Me. June 17, 2005), the Court, relying on a number of cases dealing with searches of computers pursuant to warrants

ent the government from using a grand jury subpoena to conduct an unfettered general search of the contents of the computers. See United States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc., 473 F.3d 915, 938-39 (91" Cir. 2006) ("[i]t is not reasonable to allow the government to seize an indeterminately bounded array of computer data o

shed the subpoena in its entirety, without prejudice to the grand jury's ability to issue a properly narrowed subpoena. Id. at 13-14. See also In re Amato, 2005 WL 1429743 at *11-1'12 (D.Me. June 17, 2005)(granting motion to quash with respect to paragraph of subpoena requesting production of all comp

t to seize an indeterminately bounded array of computer data only later to set its own standards for review and retention thereof. United States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc., 473 F.3d 915, 938 (9th Cir. 2006)(emphasis added). Thus, even in the Comprehensive Drug Testing case, in which the government gained possession of