In Re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated May 29, 1987. John Doe and Jane Doe v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
MESKILL, Circuit Judge:
John and Jane Doe appeal from a decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Broder-ick, J., allowing them to intervene but denying their motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum directed to their administrative assistant Richard Roe. Doe and Roe are pseudonyms used to preserve the anonymity of the principals involved and the secrecy of the underlying grand jury proceedings. The district court simultaneously granted the government’s motion to compel compliance with the subpoena but stayed that portion of its order pending resolution…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Fisher v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Cobbledick v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. WallingSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Couch v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- United States v. DoeSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Arista Records, LLC v. Doe 3Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2010
- In Re: Grand Jury SubpoenaCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1999
- In Re Three Grand Jury Subpoenas, Dated January 5, 1988. Richard Roe, Abc Corporation and Def L.P. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1988
- In Re Grand Jury Subpoena John Doe, No. 05gj1318Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2009
- In Re Grand Jury Investigation U.S. Attorney Matter Number 89-4-8881-J. Appeal of Steven R. HellerCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1991
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.