United States v. Seabrook
1:16-cr-00467
S.D.N.Y.Oct 23, 2017Background
- Defendant Murray Huberfeld served five Rule 17(c) subpoenas (to Jona Rechnitz; Rechnitz's counsel Cooley LLP; Naftol & Weberman CPAs; Simcha Schonfeld; and Koss & Schonfeld) seeking documents largely aimed at impeaching or showing bias of cooperating witness Jona Rechnitz.
- Requests included prior statements by Rechnitz, tax returns and communications regarding tax returns, documents concerning payments to third parties, health insurance benefit records, and transactional/loan documents involving Rechnitz and third parties.
- Subpoenas were issued Sept. 29, 2017, with return dates of Oct. 23, 2017 (first day of trial), and were served before Huberfeld received the Government's Jencks/3500 material.
- Non-parties moved to quash; Huberfeld opposed in part and narrowed his enforcement position in reply.
- The court applied the Nixon/Ulbricht test for Rule 17(c) subpoenas: relevancy, admissibility, and specificity, plus that materials be unobtainable by due diligence and necessary for trial preparation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Huberfeld) | Defendant's Argument (Non-Parties / Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overbroad subpoenas / specificity | Subpoenas seek specific documents containing Rechnitz statements about indictment allegations for impeachment | Non-parties argue requests are drafted too broadly (e.g., "concerning or comprising") and lack sufficient specification | Court narrowed Rechnitz Requests 1,2,3,5 and Cooley Request 1 to only documents that contain a statement or communication by Rechnitz about the indictment; denied quash as narrowed |
| Timing of production (produce at start of trial vs. at witness testimony) | Huberfeld sought production on return date (trial start) to prepare; argued Rechnitz will testify | Non-parties argued impeachment materials should be provided when witness testifies; production at trial-stage avoids premature disclosure and is usual practice in Second Circuit | Court held production (except for Request 8) must be returnable at time Rechnitz testifies (modifying return date) because Second Circuit favors production when witness testifies |
| Cooley subpoenas implicating Jencks/3500 and admissibility of counsel notes | Huberfeld sought Cooley records of communications with prosecutors and notes reflecting Rechnitz statements for impeachment | Cooley argued materials are likely Jencks material already produced by Government, or consist of counsel characterizations (not the witness's own statements) and thus are not admissible prior statements | Court granted quash as to Cooley Requests 2,3,4 (and narrowed/denied others as noted); Cooley Request 2 insufficiently specific and producible via Government; counsel notes not admissible as prior statements absent witness adoption |
| Health insurance records (Request 8) — bias/motive to fabricate | Huberfeld argued health-insurance-related documents show bias/motive (benefits provided through cooperation) and thus are material to bias | Non-parties sought to quash as irrelevant/impeachment only | Court denied quash for Request 8, finding documents regarding health insurance payments relevant to bias and admissible in advance of trial |
| Tax returns / transactional documents from Naftol & Weberman and Koss & Schonfeld | Huberfeld sought tax returns, communications about returns, and transactional/loan documents linking Rechnitz to third parties (Nissen, Peralta) for impeachment/bias | Non-parties moved to quash parts; Huberfeld narrowed some requests and did not pursue others | Court denied quash for Naftol & Weberman Requests 1–2 and Koss & Schonfeld Requests 1–2 (subject to the test for timing — returnable when Rechnitz testifies); quashed Naftol Request 3 as not pursued |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ulbricht, 858 F.3d 71 (2d Cir.) (Rule 17(c) requires relevancy, admissibility, specificity)
- United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) (standards for production under subpoena duces tecum)
- United States v. Marchisio, 344 F.2d 653 (2d Cir.) (documents must meet relevancy/admissibility tests at time of production)
- LaRouche Campaign v. Kennedy, 841 F.2d 1176 (1st Cir.) (permitting pretrial disclosure of impeachment material in limited circumstances)
- United States v. Murray, 297 F.2d 812 (2d Cir.) (impeachment material obtainable by Rule 17(c) at trial)
- United States v. Strother, 49 F.3d 869 (2d Cir.) (prior statements admissible for impeachment only if they are the witness's own)
- United States v. Almonte, 956 F.2d 27 (2d Cir.) (attorney notes/characterizations not admissible as prior statements absent witness adoption)
- United States v. Cuthbertson, 630 F.2d 139 (3d Cir.) (impeachment material relevance post-testimony)