Tomison

United States v. Tomison

Good Law
969 F. Supp. 587·97 Daily Journal DAR 12806·1997 WL 369461·1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9429
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJune 30, 1997CR. S-96-427 LKKCalifornia7,612 words

Opinion

Opinion

Karlton, J.

ORDER

The defendants in the above-captioned case sought subpoenas duces tecum directed to various third parties requiring the pretrial production of documents pertaining to their defense. Claiming that Fed.R.Crim.P. 17(c) authorized the procedure, their motion was made ex-parte and sought the sealing of the motion and the supporting documents asserting that serving those documents upon the government would reveal their likely strategy at trial. The Court granted the motions to seal and authorized issuance of the subpoenas. Now Pending before the court are motions seeking to quash brought by the government and two of the recipients of the subpoenas. I address the motions in turn.

I.

THE GOVERNMENT’S MOTION

The government’s motion raises two related but distinct questions. First, does Fed. R.Crim.P. 17(c) permit or require the court to entertain an ex-parte application for pretrial production of subpoenas duces tecum under the facts and circumstances of this case? Second, does the government have standing, under either the Constitution or Rule 17(c), to move to quash or modify these subpoenas. I turn to the ex parte issue first.

A. EX PARTE APPLICATIONS UNDER RULE 17(c)

Rule…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.