Page 1 of 10
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 334 Filed 08/13/21 Page1of10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT saan
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:;
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. Asa 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