Opinion
Case No. 4:01CR207
March 15, 2002
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION REGARDING ODOT SUBPOENA
Before the Court is Defendant Traficant's motion that the Court order the Ohio Department of Transportation ("ODOT") to comply with his subpoena. (Docket #212).
On 25 February 2002, in the third week of trial, Defendant Traficant issued a subpoena to ODOT for the personnel records of two former ODOT employees, Thomas Williams and David Dreger. Mr. Williams and Mr. Dreger have both testified as government witnesses. That same day, Lisa Conomy, Chief Legal Counsel of ODOT, faxed a letter to Defendant Traficant indicating that the subpoena had been received and that ODOT would respond to it. See Attachment A.
On 4 March 2002. Defendant Traficant represented that he had received what he described as a "generic" personnel file from ODOT. (3/4/02 Tr. at 1797). He claimed that the file must be incomplete because "[t]here wasn't one thing about this man or any meeting with his boss, any talk with his boss about any problems," including an alleged letter by Congressman Traficant to Mr. Williams' boss in which Congressman Traficant allegedly recommended that Mr. Williams be fired. (3/4/02Tr. at 1797).
There has been no testimony or other evidence establishing the existence of such a letter.
Mr. Morford represented that a government agent called Ms. Conomy that morning. He reported that she said that ODOT "had sent Congressman Traficant everything that they were going to send. They redacted medical records because they're privileged, and they're not going to be providing those because by law, they can't provide those, and that everything he's entitled to in those records, he has." (3/4/02 Tr. at 1792).
In order to resolve the issue, the Court requested that Defendant Traficant take two steps: (1) contact Ms. Conomy in order to learn whether or not ODOT had sent all of the documents that it was going to send and (2) provide the Court and the government with a copy of the documents that he had already received. (3/4/02 Tr. at 1795, 1797, 2025, 2026).
Defendant Traficant refused to follow-up on his subpoena by contacting Ms. Conomy. (3/4/02 Tr. at 2022). Moreover, in spite of repeated requests by this Court, the defendant failed to make available to the Court and to the government copies of the documents he had received from Chief Legal Counsel of ODOT until the morning of 6 March 2002.
The documents Defendant Traficant has received from ODOT regarding Mr. Williams number approximately sixty-seven pages. The personnel file received by Defendant Traficant includes multiple performance evaluations and various intra-ODOT letters and documents regarding Mr. Williams.
Based on the above facts, this Court finds that there is no indication that ODOT has not complied with the subpoena. Thus, Defendant Traficant's motion is moot and is denied as such. If Defendant Traficant contacts ODOT and demonstrates to the Court that ODOT has not complied fully with the subpoena, he may renew his motion.