Legal Opinion

In Re Grand Jury Investigation of Possible Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1461

District Court, District of Columbia

Decided October 26, 2009No. Misc. No. 2009-0118PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ROYCE C. LAMBERTH, Chief Judge.

The United States has requested that this Court compel Company X to comply with four subpoenas issued by a grand jury sitting in this district and served on Company X on September 5, 2008. Having considered the United States’ motion to compel, Company X’s response, the reply thereto, and the arguments of counsel, the United States’ motion is granted in part and denied in part for the reasons set forth below.

I. BACKGROUND

On September 5, 2008, the United States served four grand jury subpoenas on Company X. Gov’t Motion to Compel at 2…

2Cases cited32 opinions

  1. United States v. CalandraSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  2. Roth v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  3. Miller v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  4. Hamling v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  5. Branzburg v. HayesSupreme Court of the United States · 1972

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. In Re Grand Jury Subpoena No. 11116275District Court, District of Columbia · 2012
  2. In re Grand Jury SubpoenaDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2014
  3. James Trotter v. UnknownDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2020
  4. Louisiana Stadium & Exposition District v. Financial Guaranty InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2012
  5. Scott Kahala King v. United StatesDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2019

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

Powered by the Exa API