Epstein Secrets

witness's direct testimony. See United States v. Giampa, No. S 92-CR-437 (PKL), 1992 WL 296440, at *3 *4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 1992); United States v. Ferguson, No. 3:06-CR-137 (CFD), 2007 WL 4577303, at *3 (D. Conn. Dec. 26, 2007). Maxwell also argues that compulsion of the materials' production under Rul

e Government's briefing regardless of standing as part of its duty to ensure that the subpoena meets the requirements of Nixon. See United States v. Bergstein, No. I6-CR-746 (PKC), 2017 WL 6887596, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2017). But ex parte Rule 17(c) subpoenas are possible in some circumstances if just

witness's direct testimony. See United States v. Giampa, No. S 92-CR-437 (PKL), 1992 WL 296440, at *3 *4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 1992); United States v. Ferguson, No. 3:06-CR-137 (CFD), 2007 WL 4577303, at *3 (D. Conn. Dec. 26, 2007). Maxwell also argues that compulsion of the materials' production under Rul

e Government's briefing regardless of standing as part of its duty to ensure that the subpoena meets the requirements of Nixon. See United States v. Bergstein, No. I6-CR-746 (PKC), 2017 WL 6887596, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2017). But ex parte Rule 17(c) subpoenas are possible in some circumstances if just

estimony at trial can be admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 613, and so can be the proper subject of a Rule 17(c) subpoena. United States v. Ferguson, No. 3:06-CR137(CFD), 2007 WL 4577303, at •3 (D. Conn. Dec. 26, 2007) (holding that prior inconsistent statements of testifying witnesses are "prop

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

witness's direct testimony. See United States v. Giampa, No. S 92-CR-437 (PKL), 1992 WL 296440, at *3 *4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 1992); United States v. Ferguson, No. 3:06-CR-137 (CFD), 2007 WL 4577303, at *3 (D. Conn. Dec. 26, 2007). Maxwell also argues that compulsion of the materials' production under Rul

e Government's briefing regardless of standing as part of its duty to ensure that the subpoena meets the requirements of Nixon. See United States v. Bergstein, No. I6-CR-746 (PKC), 2017 WL 6887596, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2017). But ex parte Rule 17(c) subpoenas are possible in some circumstances if just

witness's direct testimony. See United States v. Giampa, No. S 92-CR-437 (PKL), 1992 WL 296440, at *3 *4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 1992); United States v. Ferguson, No. 3:06-CR-137 (CFD), 2007 WL 4577303, at *3 (D. Conn. Dec. 26, 2007). Maxwell also argues that compulsion of the materials' production under Rul

e Government's briefing regardless of standing as part of its duty to ensure that the subpoena meets the requirements of Nixon. See United States v. Bergstein, No. I6-CR-746 (PKC), 2017 WL 6887596, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2017). But ex parte Rule 17(c) subpoenas are possible in some circumstances if just