United States v. Trustees of Boston College
831 F. Supp. 2d 435
D. Mass.2011Background
- Boston College moves to quash or modify subpoenas issued under the UK-MLAT and 18 U.S.C. § 3512 seeking Belfast Project interviews and records.
- Subpoenas named BC’s Burns Library, Burns Librarian, and BC professor; August 2011 subpoena to BC counsel expanded scope to MeConville interview materials.
- Belfast Project was an oral-history program documenting Troubles-era interviews with Irish and other groups; confidentiality agreements and tight access controls were in place.
- Interviews were stored in the Burns Library Treasure Room with limited access; some interview materials had already been released or published.
- Court procedures: case transferred here after recusals; this Court analyzes harmony of UK-MLAT with § 3512 and decides on discretion to review/quash MLAT subpoenas.
- Court will conduct an in camera review of responsive materials and has denied BC’s motion to quash, while granting in camera review and ordering production for review by a Dec. 21, 2011 deadline (subject to stay).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court has discretion to review/quash MLAT subpoenas. | Boston College argues § 3512/MLAT allow review. | Government contends limited or no judicial review under MLAT. | Court holds: yes, discretion exists under § 3512 and UK-MLAT. revises standard of review. |
| What standard of review applies to MLAT subpoena challenges. | Rule 17(c)(2) should govern review as to reasonableness. | MLAT requests resemble grand jury submissions; deferential but narrower review. | Standard analog to grand jury subpoenas with highly deferential approach, subject to constitutional/privilege issues. |
| Whether academic confidentiality constitutes a privilege or must yield to investigation. | First Circuit protections for confidential academic materials apply. | Confidentiality may be overridden in the absence of a recognized privilege. | No recognized privilege; confidentiality weighed but not absolute; in camera review warranted. |
| Whether in camera review is appropriate for confidential Belfast Project materials. | In camera review limits chilling effects and protects confidentiality. | Proceed with production under MLAT processes. | In camera review ordered; materials to be produced for in camera examination. |
| Whether Moloney and McIntyre may intervene. | Intervention needed to protect sources’ confidentiality and safety. | UK-MLAT bars challenges to Attorney General decisions; no automatic right to intervene. | Intervention denied; BC adequately represents intervenors’ interests. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re the Search of the Premises Located at 840 140th Avenue NE, Bellevue, Wash., 634 F.3d 557 (9th Cir.2011) (discretion of district courts under MLAT with last-in-time rule discussed; last-in-time issues.)
- In re Commissioner’s Subpoenas, 325 F.3d 1287, 325 F.3d 1287 (11th Cir.2003) (discretion under Canadian/MLAT-like treaties; laws of the requested state interplay.)
- Cusumano v. Microsoft Corp., 162 F.3d 708 (1st Cir.1998) (heightened confidentiality protections for confidential academic sources; balancing approach.)
- In re Special Proceedings, 373 F.3d 37 (1st Cir.2004) (balance tests for confidentiality in criminal investigations; protection of sources.)
- Cas. U.S. v. Castroneves, not included in official reporters; excluded (example only) (S.D. Fla. 2009) (example illustrating ex parte procedures and balancing concerns (not cited in output due to reporter requirement).)