United States v. Sellers
275 F.R.D. 620
D. Nev.2011Background
- Defendant Sellers is charged by superseding indictment (Dkt. #181) filed May 20, 2008.
- The U.S. Attorney General determined not to seek the death penalty on August 4, 2011 (Dkt. #1338).
- Sellers seeks pretrial production via a Rule 17 subpoena to obtain photographs of his tattoos from Chief Ed Johnson at the Donald W. Wyatt Detention Center.
- The subpoena would require the witness to produce photographs before trial, with production coordinated to avoid travel to Nevada, and would be sealed.
- The application is supported by defense counsel’s affidavit and seeks costs paid as if government subpoenas.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court may grant pretrial production under Rule 17(c) | Seller shows good cause for production pretrial | Indigent defendant entitled to pretrial production to aid defense | Granted; good cause shown for pretrial production under Rule 17(c) |
| Whether ex parte pretrial subpoenas are permissible | Ex parte submission is necessary to protect sources and strategy | Balance of interests favors disclosure with safeguards | Court allows ex parte approach under limited circumstances; order sealed to protect strategy |
| What standards govern good cause for pretrial production under Rule 17 | Documents are evidentiary, highly relevant, and not otherwise procurable | Pretrial production is necessary for defense with specificity | Iozia/Nixon framework applied; good cause found for pretrial production under Nixon/Iozia standards |
Key Cases Cited
- Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1974) (pretrial production requires relevancy, admissibility, and specificity)
- Bowman Dairy Co. v. United States, 341 U.S. 214 (U.S. 1951) (limits on discovery and need for specificity in subpoenas)
- United States v. LaRouche Campaign, 841 F.2d 1176 (1st Cir. 1988) (pretrial subpoenas not a discovery device; discretion used on production)
- United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (U.S. Supreme Court 1974) (pretrial subpoenas; production timing and inspection rights)
- United States v. Lieberman, 608 F.2d 889 (1st Cir. 1979) (pretrial documents production under court discretion)
- United States v. Parker, 586 F.2d 422 (5th Cir. 1978) (pretrial production; recognition of subpoena power)
- United States v. Murray, 297 F.2d 812 (2nd Cir. 1962) (pretrial subpoena authority lineage)
- United States v. Carter, 15 F.R.D. 367 (D.C. 1954) (early framework for Rule 17 subpoenas)
- United States v. Shinderman, 232 F.R.D. 147 (D.Me. 2005) (Rule 17(c) not a broad discovery device; limits apply)
- Beckford, 964 F. Supp. 1010 (D.Va. 1997) (ex parte production considerations; good cause)