DOJ-OGR-00002893.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document195 Filed 04/05/21 Page4of11 Page 4 evidence; it cannot be used as a device to gain understanding or explanation.” United States v. Rich, No. 83 Cr. 579 (SWK), 1984 WL 845, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 1984) (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added). Accordingly, subpoenas that call for “any” and “all” records “do not evince specificity” and “read[] like a discovery request, which is not permitted under Rule 17(c).” Tagliaferro, 2021 WL 980004 at *3; see Pena, 2016 WL 8735699, at *3. And “[g]enerally the need for evidence to impeach witnesses is insufficient to require its production in advance of trial.” Nixon, 418 U.S. at 701 (citations omitted); see Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(h) (“No party may subpoena a statement of a witness or of a prospective witness under this rule.”). If a subpoena calls for “personal or confidential information about a victim,” the subpoena may be served “only by court order” following “notice to the victim so that the victim can move to quash or modify the subpoena or otherwise object.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c)(3). After a subpoena issues, “[t]he court may direct the witness to produce the designated items in court before trial or before they are to be offered in evidence.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c)(1). “When the items arrive, the court may permit the parties and their attorneys to inspect all or part of them.” Jd. II. The Court Should Direct the Defendant to Provide Notice of Prior and Future Applications Under Rule 17(c) to the Government The Government has legitimate and cognizable interests in Rule 17(c) subpoenas issued by the defense. In particular, courts have routinely found that the Government has standing to move to quash Rule 17(c) subpoenas that target information about anticipated Government witnesses “based on the Government’s ‘interest in preventing any undue lengthening of the trial, any undue harassment of the witness and his family, and any prejudicial over-emphasis on the witness’s credibility.” United States v. Ray, -- F.R.D. --, No. 20 Cr. 110 (LJL), 2020 WL 6939677, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2020) (alterations omitted) (quoting United States v. Giampa, No. 92 Cr. 437 (PKL), 1992 WL 296440, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 1992)); see United States v. Bergstein, No. 16 DOJ-OGR-00002893