Court Opinion

ID: 9963600
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-25 20:24:45.891486+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:53.471953
License: Public Domain

People v Trump
               2024 NY Slip Op 31429(U)
                     April 23, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
         Docket Number: Index No. 71543/2023
                 Judge: Juan M. Merchan
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
        SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
        COUNTY OF NEW YORI<: PART 59

         THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK                                DECISION AND ORDER
                                                                               ON DEFENDANT'S
                                  against   -                                MOTION TO COMPEL
                                                                              COMPLIANCE WITH
         DONALD J. TRUMP,                                                  SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
                                                                           TO STEPHANIE CLIFFORD
                                        Defendant.
                                                                                 Ind.No. 71543/2023

        HON. JUAN M. MERCHAN A.J.S.C.:

               On April 4, 2023, Donald J. Trump, the Defendant, was arraigned before this Court on an
        indictment charging him with 34 counts of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree, in violation
        of Penal Law § 175.10. On March 18, 2024, Defendant issued a subpoena duces tecum (hereinafter
        "Subpoena") to Stephanie Clifford a/k/ a "Stormy Daniels" (hereinafter "Daniels") seeking all
        materials related to the documentary film titled "Stormy" (hereinafter "Documentary"). The subpoena
        also sought all documents, for the period between April 2023 and the present, relating to
        communications with "Michael Cohen or his representatives, Karen McDougal, Elizabeth Jean
        Carroll,Jessica Leeds, or Natasha Stoynoff." Daniels 3/18/24 Subpoena. Finally, the subpoena sought
        all documents "relating to communications with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District
        of New York" during the period of April 2018 to the present. Id. On April 8, 2024, Defendant filed a
        pre-motion letter indicating his intent to file a motion to compel compliance with the Subpoena. On
        April 9, 2024, Clark 0. Brewster, attorney for Daniels, filed a letter opposing Defendant's motion to
        compel as well as cross moving to quash the Subpoena. On April 12, 2024, the Defendant filed his
        motion to compel. On April 19, 2024, the People filed a motion in opposition to Defendant's motion
        to compel and cross moved to quash the Subpoena.

                                                      DISCUSSION

                For the following reasons, Defendant's motion to compel is DENIED and the People and
        Daniels' motions to quash are GRANTED.
                CPL§ 610.20 provides that any party to a criminal proceeding may issue a subpoena. CPL §
        610.20(3) specifically provides that an attorney for a defendant in a criminal action may issue a

[* 1]
        subpoena of any witness whom the defendant is entitled to call in such action or proceeding. To
        "sustain a subpoena," the issuing party must demonstrate "that the testimony or evidence sought is
        reasonably likely to be relevant and material to the proceedings and that the subpoena is not overbroad
        or unreasonably burdensome." See CPL § 610.20(4); see also, People v. Kozlowski, 11 NY3d 223, 242
        [2008] (the proper purpose of a subpoena duces tecum is to compel the production of specific documents
        that are relevant and material to facts at issue in a judicial proceeding). When disputes arise concerning
        the "validity or propriety" of a subpoena, the court must resolve whether the subpoena is enforceable.
        See Application of Davis, 88 Misc2d 938, 940 [Crim. Ct. N.Y. Co. 1976]; see also, People v. Natal, 75 NY2d
        3 79, 385 [1990]. Because the subpoenaed materials are returnable to the court, it follows that the court
        retains the ultimate authority on the outer parameters of the subpoena powers. See People v. D.N., 62
        Misc3d 544 [Crim. Ct. N.Y. Co. 2018], internal!J citing Matter ojTerry D., 81 NY2d 1042 [1993].
                The Court of Appeals has held that a subpoena is properly quashed when the party issuing the
        subpoena fails "to demonstrate any theory of relevancy and materiality, but instead, merely desire[s]
        the opportunity for an unrestrained foray into confidential records in the hope that the unearthing of
        some unspecified information [will] enable [them] to impeach witness[es]." People v. Gissendanner, 48
        NY2d 543, 549 [1979]. A subpoena duces tecum may not generally be "used for the purpose of discovery
        or to ascertain the existence of evidence." Id. at 551. Conversely, courts have denied a motion to quash
        where the subpoena demands production of specific documents which are relevant and material to
        the proceedings. See People v. Duran, 32 Misc3d 225, 229 [Crim. Ct. Kings Co. 2011, Laporte, J] ("the
        defendant established that the solicited data is relevant and material to the determination of guilt or
        innocence, and not sought solely in the speculative hope of finding possible impeachment of witness'
        general credibility"); People v. Campanella, 27 Misc3d 737 [Dist. Ct. Suffolk Co. 2009, Horowitz, J].
                When deciding a motion to quash a subpoena, "access must be afforded to . .. data relevant
        and material to the determination of guilt or innocence, as, for example, when a request for access is
        directed toward revealing specific 'biases, prejudices or ulterior motives of the witness as they may
        relate directly to issues or personalities in the case at hand' or when it involves other information
        which if known to the trier of fact, could very well affect the outcome of the trial ... there is no such
        compulsion when requests to examine records are motivated by nothing more than impeachment of
        witnesses' general credibility." People v. Gissendanner at 548, quoting Davis v. A las.ka, 415 US 308, 316
        [197 4]. Thus, this Court must determine, among other things, whether the subpoena seeks information
        to be used for impeachment of general credibility or is instead directed towards revealing specific
        biases, prejudices or ulterior motives related directly to personalities or issues in the instant matter;

                                                            2

[* 2]
        whether the solicited information is material to the question of guilt or innocence, or nothing more
        than a 'fishing expedition.'
                Defendant's first request seeks "all Documents that relate to the Documentary and one or
        more of the following topics ... " Defendant's first request mirrors that of the requests sent to NBC
        Universal on March 11, 2024, in a subpoena that was quashed by this Court on April 5, 2024. First,
        Defendant seeks all documents "that relate to the Documentary and one or more of the following
        topics: (a) the premiere of the Documentary, (b) the release date of the Documentary, (c) editing of
        the Documentary, (d) promotion of the Documentary, (e) marketing of the Documentary, (£) any
        form of compensation relating to the Documentary, (g) any rights to the Documentary maintained
        by Stephanie Clifford, (h) agreements between Stephanie Clifford and NBCUniversal or any of its
        affiliates, (i) the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, G) District Attorney Alvin Bragg, (k) Susan
        Hoffinger, (1) Rebecca Mangold, (m) Joshua Steinglass, (n) Matthew Colangelo, (o) the trial in People v.
        Trump, Indictment Number 71543-23, involving charges filed by the Manhattan District Attorney's
        Office, (p) Michael Cohen, and (q) Donald J. Trump." Daniels 3/18/24 Subpoena. This request is
        overbroad and seeks general discovery.
                Defendant's second request seeks, for the time period between April 2023 to the present, "all
        documents relating to communications with the following: Michael Cohen or his representatives;
        Karen McDougal; Elizabeth Jean Carroll; Jessica Leeds; or Natasha Stoynoff." Daniels 3/18/24
        Subpoena. This request is overbroad, seeks general discovery, and is not limited to the subject matter
        of the case.
                Defendant's third request seeks, for the time period between April 2018 to the present, "all
        Documents relating to the communications with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District
        of New York. Daniels 3/18/24 Subpoena. This request is overbroad, seeks general discovery, and is
        not limited to the subject matter of the case.

                                                           3

[* 3]
              For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motion to compel is DENIED and the People and
        Daniels' motions to quash are GRA TED.

              SO ORDERED.

        April 23, 2024
        New York, New York

                                                  A'cting Justic        upreme Court
                                                  Judge of the Court of Claims

                                                       talJ.MEM .

                                                   4

[* 4]