Opinion
22-20018-01-DDC
02-06-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JAMES YOUNG, JR. 01, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Daniel D. Crabtree United States District Judge
On January 19, 2023, defendant James Young, Jr. filed his “Motion for Production of Documents and Objects Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(b) and (c)” (Doc. 22). During a hearing on January 25, 2023, the court expressed its concerns about whether the requested subpoena complied with the standards adopted in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974). It thus directed the defendant, if he intended to go forward with his request for a subpoena, to provide a memorandum explaining how his proposed subpoena complies with Nixon. It also directed the government, if it opposed the motion, to submit a memorandum explaining its opposition. Since then, neither party has submitted a filing on this subject. The court construes this silence to manifest a decision not to go forward on the motion. And given the court's concerns about Nixon on the existing record, the court denies it for this additional reason.
Thus, the court denies defendant's “Motion for Production of Documents and Objects Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(b) and (c)” (Doc. 22) without prejudice to refiling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.