Legal Opinion

In Re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated January 30, 1992

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided October 27, 1992No. Misc. 92 M-11 189 (JSM)PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

MARTIN, District Judge.

The government moved to compel X Corporation to produce materials in response to a grand jury subpoena duces tecum. Respondent, X Corporation, and its chairman, Doe, oppose the government’s motion to compel and support Doe’s cross-motion to quash or modify the subpoena to the extent that it calls for Doe’s personal materials which are contained in such corporate documents. They contend that ordering X Corporation to produce these documents, which were created by corporate employees, in X Corporation’s offices, in the ordinary course of its…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Fisher v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. Mabel A. King v. James F. Palmer, Director, D.C. Department of Corrections Mabel A. King v. James F. Palmer, Director, D.C. Department of CorrectionsCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1991
  3. United States v. Patrick J. Cunningham and John J. SweeneyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1982
  4. In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces TecumCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1983
  5. United States v. DoeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1992

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. McBryar v. International Union of United Automobile Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of AmericaDistrict Court, S.D. Indiana · 1993

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

Powered by the Exa API