DOJ-OGR-00005030.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 334 Filed 08/13/21 Page1of10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT eric | SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: ri ani ieee DATE FILED: 8/13/21 United States of America, _y_ 20-CR-330 (AJN) Ghislaine Maxwell, OPINION & ORDER Defendant. ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell seeks an order authorizing four subpoenas pursuant to Rule 17(c)(3) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Specifically, she seeks authorization to serve subpoenas on four individuals. For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES Maxwell’s motion without prejudice. 1. Legal Standard Rule 17(c) permits subpoenas ordering the production of “books, papers, documents, data, or other objects.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c)(1). When the subpoena seeks the production of personal or confidential information about a victim, it may be served on a third party only by court order. Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c)(3). The purpose of Rule 17(c) is to facilitate the trial by designating a time and place prior to trial to obtain and inspect evidentiary material. See United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 698— 99 (1974) (citing Bowman Dairy Co. v. United States, 341 U.S. 214, 220 (1951)). It is not intended to provide an additional means of discovery or to serve as a general “fishing expedition.” /d. at 698-700. As a result, courts must be mindful not to allow the Rule 17(c) process to become a “broad discovery device” that would undermine the discovery procedures set forth in Rule 16. United States v. Cherry, 876 F. Supp. 547, 552 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). Thus, if DOJ-OGR-00005030