Legal Opinion

In Re Grand Jury Subpoenas Addressed to Sentinel Financial Instruments

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided October 18, 1982No. M11-188PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

TENNEY, District Judge.

This is a motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c) by Sentinel Financial Instruments (“SFI”) and Michael Senft (“Senft”), a principal of SFI, to quash grand jury subpoenas requiring the production of SFI business documents. The subpoenas were served on SFI and Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz (“Wachtell, Lipton”), SFI’s counsel. The movants claim that Senft is entitled to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to immunize SFI’s records from production and that the documents in possession of Wachtell, Lipton are protected by the…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Fisher v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York HarborSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  3. Couch v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  4. United States v. WhiteSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
  5. Bellis v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Grand Jury Subpoenas Addressed to Sentinel Financial Instruments, in ReCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1982
  2. Paramount Pictures Corp. v. MiskinisMichigan Supreme Court · 1984
  3. Paramount Pictures Corp. v. MiskinisMichigan Supreme Court · 1984
  4. Sentinel Financial Instruments v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1982
  5. Slone-Stiver v. Broock (In Re Tower Metal Alloy Co.)United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · 1996

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API