Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-14-71875/USCOURTS-ca9-14-71875-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
K.K.

Gerard K. Puana
Real Party in Interest
United States District Court for the District of Hawaii
Respondent

Document Text:

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: K.K.

K.K.,

 Petitioner,

 v.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII,

 Respondent,

GERARD K. PUANA,

 Real Party in Interest.

No. 14-71875

D.C. No. 1:13-cr-00735-LEK-1

 1:14-mc-00102-LEK

 1:14-mc-00119-LEK

OPINION

Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court

for the District of Hawaii

Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 27, 2014* 

Filed July 1, 2014

FILED

JUL 01 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

 Case: 14-71875, 07/01/2014, ID: 9152190, DktEntry: 9, Page 1 of 4
Before: GOULD, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This is a petition for a writ of mandamus filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3771,

the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (“CVRA”). Petitioner, a victim of a mailbox theft

crime, challenges district court orders issued on June 13, and June 18, 2014,

denying in part motions to quash two subpoenas duces tecum whose issuance

defendant has requested under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c)(3). 

In reviewing CVRA mandamus petitions, we are not required to balance the

factors outlined in Bauman v. United States District Court, 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir.

1977). See Kenna v. U.S. Dist. Court, 435 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2006).

Rather, this court “must issue the writ whenever we find that the district court’s

order reflects an abuse of discretion or legal error.” Id.

The district court did not abuse its discretion or commit legal error in

denying the motions to quash. The information sought by defendant meets the

standard for issuing a Rule 17(c) subpoena. See United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S.

683, 699-700 (1974) (stating standard). Furthermore, in ordering production of the

requested documents, the district court appropriately balanced the victim’s privacy

interests against the defendant’s right to “investigate the case and prepare a defense

for trial.” Michigan v. Harvey, 494 U.S. 344, 348 (1990). Finding no abuse of

2

 Case: 14-71875, 07/01/2014, ID: 9152190, DktEntry: 9, Page 2 of 4
discretion or legal error, the petition for a writ of mandamus pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§ 3771 is denied. 

However, given the sensitive nature of the documents sought, production

and disclosure of the documents on July 2, 2014 shall initially be limited to the

district court. The district court shall then conduct an in camera review of the

produced documents to determine whether, in light of the information they contain

and their relevancy to the issues to be raised at trial, their disclosure to defense

counsel would be “unreasonable or oppressive” under Rule 17(c)(2), such that

production to defense counsel should be denied. Upon review of the documents in

camera, the district court may place additional limits on defense counsel’s use of

the documents at trial.

DENIED.

3

 Case: 14-71875, 07/01/2014, ID: 9152190, DktEntry: 9, Page 3 of 4
Counsel Listing 

Kevin Paul Hisami Sumida, Sumida & Associates LLLC, Honolulu, Hawaii, for

Petitioner.

Peter C. Wolff, Jr., Federal Public Defender, and Alexander Silvert, First Assistant

Federal Defender, Honolulu, Hawaii, for Real Party in Interest Gerard K. Puana.

4

 Case: 14-71875, 07/01/2014, ID: 9152190, DktEntry: 9, Page 4 of 4