Opinion ID: 612849
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Motion to Quash Subpoenas

Text: Prior to trial, McDonald filed subpoenas duces tecum commanding Arlington County, Virginia, Detective M.J. Woods to produce “any and all records, notes, files, memorandum and/or documents in any form . . . regarding Kyle Mathew McDonald.” He similarly filed a subpoena seeking the same information from the Arlington County Witness/Victim Office. The Government moved to quash both and the court granted the motion. To compel production, the Supreme Court has required that subpoenas cover (1) relevant evidentiary materials or documents; (2) that are not otherwise procurable by exercise of due diligence; (3) without which the party cannot properly prepare for trial; and (4) which is not intended as a fishing expedition. United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 699-700 (1974). Stated more simply, Nixon requires that a party seeking pretrial production of documents demonstrate (1) relevancy, (2) 4 admissibility, and (3) specificity with respect to the documents. In re Martin Marietta Corp., 856 F.2d 619, 621 (4th Cir. 1988). Additionally, Rule 17 subpoenas are not a substitute for discovery. As the Supreme Court has emphasized, “[i]t was not intended by Rule 16 to give a limited right of discovery, and then by Rule 17 to give a right of discovery in the broadest terms.” Bowman Dairy Co. v. United States, 341 U.S. 214, 220 (1951); see Nixon, 418 U.S. at 698. We have reviewed the subpoenas in this case, and we easily conclude that they are overbroad and unspecific. The district court properly found that McDonald was using the subpoenas to engage in a fishing expedition, and we find no error in the court’s granting of the motion to quash.