DOJ-OGR-00005031.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 334 Filed 08/13/21 Page 2 of10 an item is not discoverable under Rule 16, a party cannot make it discoverable simply by subpoenaing it under Rule 17. United States v. Barnes, No. S9 04-CR-186 (SCR), 2008 WL 9359654, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2008). To determine whether issuance of the subpoena is appropriate, the Court considers the factors articulated in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 699-700. In Nixon, the Supreme Court explained that in order to require production prior to trial, the moving party must show: (1) that the documents are evidentiary and relevant; (2) that they are not otherwise procurable reasonably in advance of trial by exercise of due diligence; (3) that the party cannot properly prepare for trial without such production and inspection in advance of trial and that the failure to obtain such inspection may tend unreasonably to delay the trial; and (4) that the application is made in good faith and is not intended as a general ‘fishing expedition.’” Jd. at 698-700. To clear that hurdle, the Court considers (1) relevancy, (2) admissibility, and (3) specificity. /d. at 700. Il. Discussion On April 27, 2021 and June 2, 2021, the Court denied Maxwell’s request for an order authorizing issuance of a Rule 17(c) subpoena to Boies, Schiller, Flexner LLP. See Dkt. Nos. 252, 298. In doing so, the Court noted that the requests contained in that proposed subpoena all failed the Nixon test. The proposed subpoenas to these four individuals seek similar materials, and the subpoenas fail for similar reasons. A. Subpoena Recipient-1 The Court begins with the proposed subpoenas to Subpoena Recipient-1. The proposed subpoena to her makes five requests which overlap entirely with requests contained in the proposed subpoena to BSF. Specifically, Maxwell requests (1) any contingent fee and engagement agreements between Subpoena Recipient-land any attorneys; (2) Subpoena DOJ-OGR-00005031