Epstein Secrets

of the word "shall" is well-settled. See, e.g., Lopez v. Davis, 531 U.S. 230, 241 (2001) (noting Congre

by the corporations which are defendants in the civil case, the considerations . . . militating against disclosure are beside the point.") (citing Douglas Oil Co. of Calif. v. Petrol Stops Nw., 441 U.S. 211 (1979)). In response to such third-party subpoenas to law-enforcement witnesses, we anticipate that it

not subject to a Court's discretion. See, e.g., Lopez v. Davis, 531 U.S. 230, 241 (2001) (noting Congre

by the corporations which are defendants in the civil case, the considerations . . . militating against disclosure are beside the point.") (citing Douglas Oil Co. of Calif. v. Petrol Stops Nw., 441 U.S. 211 (1979)). In response to such third-party subpoenas to law-enforcement witnesses, we anticipate that it

S.C. § 3509(k) (emphasis added). The word "shall" means that the statute's command is mandatory and not subject to a Court's discretion. See, e.g., Lopez' Davis, 531 U.S. 230, 241 (2001) (noting Congress' "use of a mandatory `shall' to impose discretionless obligations") (emphasis added); Lexecon Inc

by the corporations which are defendants in the civil case, the considerations . . . militating against disclosure are beside the point.") (citing Douglas Oil Co. of Calif. I Petrol Stops Nw., 441 U.S. 211 (1979)). In response to such third-party subpoenas to law-enforcement witnesses, we anticipate that it