DOJ-OGR-00003856.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 218 Filed 04/19/21 Page4of8 The Hon. Alison J. Nathan April 15, 2021 Page 4 the Fourteenth Amendment or in the Compulsory Process or Confrontation clauses of the Sixth Amendment, the Constitution guarantees criminal defendants a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.”). Il. The Government Lacks Standing A party lacks standing to challenge a subpoena issued to a third party absent a claim of privilege or a proprietary interest in the subpoenaed matter. Langford v. Chrysler Motor Corp., 513 F.2d 1121 (2d Cir. 1975). Accord United States v. Ray, No. 20-CR-110 (LJL), 2020 WL 6939677, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2020) (“[C]ourts in this District have generally come to the conclusion that the Government can move to quash subpoenas issued for the records of non-parties only on the basis of the Government’s own legitimate interests.”). See also United States v. Cole, No. 19 CR. 869 (ER), 2021 WL 912425, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2021) (noting “the majority rule in this District” that the government has standing to quash a subpoena of a non-party only if the alleged victim has asked it to, or if the government can assert legitimate interests of its own in quashing the subpoenas). The government has failed to articulate any of its own “legitimate interest” here. First, the government speculates, without knowing, that the defense subpoenas implicate 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.” Letter, p. 4. In support of this speculation, the government cites United States v. Ray, supra. The government does not acknowledge, however, that in Ray the court denied it standing to move to quash the subpoena. In turn, other than quoting the cliché, the government has failed to articulate how the defense subpoenas would implicate this interest. Moreover, the defendant has no reason to DOJ-OGR-00003856