In re Subpoena Duces Tecum On Custodian of Records
214 N.J. 147
| N.J. | 2013Background
- Public Defender indigency program funded by the state uses the Uniform Defendant Intake Report (UDIR) third page to collect financial data, which is supposed to be confidential.
- Cataldo, indicted on financial crimes, obtained public defender services after submitting a UDIR that certified financial information as truthful.
- State subpoenaed court records, including Cataldo’s UDIR, to investigate potential false statements to obtain public defense and possibly pursue fraud charges.
- Administrative Directive 1-06 governs confidentiality and limits use of UDIR information to trial or grand jury proceedings, not trial usage.
- Lower courts quashed the subpoena based on attorney‑client privilege and confidentiality directives; Appellate Division affirmed.
- Court remanded for indigency review; Directive amended to permit limited disclosure by grand jury subpoena, with safeguards to protect non-financial UDIR data.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can the State obtain a defendant’s UDIR from a trial subpoena? | State seeks UDIR to investigate false disclosures for fraud. | UDIR is confidential and protected by directive and privilege. | No; trial subpoena quashed; disclosure limited to grand jury under revised guidelines. |
| Should the Directive be modified to permit investigation of false disclosures? | Directive too broad in shielding disclosures. | Directive appropriately protects confidentiality. | Yes; directive modified to allow grand jury subpoenas under defined safeguards. |
| What role should indigency review play after disclosure limits? | Assignment Judge may consider fraud indicators from external data. | Indigency determination should rely on official records without UDIR disclosure. | Remand for indigency determination; use of UDIR data limited and non-disclosive unless fraud shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Blacknall, 335 N.J. Super. 52 (N.J. App. Div. 2000) (attorney‑client privilege limits on disclosure of intake information)
- In re Subpoena Duces Tecum on Custodian of Records, 420 N.J. Super. 182 (N.J. App. Div. 2011) (clarifies privilege and scope of discovery in intake records)
- In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Served Upon Levy, 165 N.J. Super. 211 (N.J. App. Div. 1978) (limits on use of intake data in proceedings; possible narrow subpoenas only)
- State v. Krueger, 241 N.J. Super. 244 (N.J. App. Div. 1990) (theft by deception for false financial disclosures)
- State v. Bzura, 261 N.J. Super. 602 (N.J. App. Div. 1993) (false swearing for misrepresented assets on financial statements)