Legal Opinion
In Re Grand Jury Subpoena
District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Decided May 4, 2007No. 1:07-cr-00028PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
FRANK D. WHITNEY, District Judge.
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the motion of [NAME OF FIRM REDACTED] [hereinafter “Movant” or the “law firm”] to quash a Grand Jury subpoena ad testificandum and duces tecum seeking information from an attorney about a client. 1
Movant contends that the grand jury subpoena addressed to both the law firm and its shareholder-member [NAME OF ATTORNEY REDACTED] should be quashed because: (1) the subpoena was not properly served on the law firm since it was served on [NAME OF ATTORNEY REDACTED], who is not the firm’s registered agent; (2)…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- United States v. NixonSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- United States v. CalandraSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- United States v. DionisioSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- United States v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- United States v. MandujanoSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- In Re TelfairDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2010
- In re Grand Jury Subpoena No. 2013R00691-009District Court, W.D. North Carolina · 2016