Court: District Court, W.D. New York; July 23, 2015; Federal District Court
Defendant Jonathan Fernandes faces thirteen counts related to drug and firearm offenses, alongside a charge of witness tampering, with trial set for August 17, 2015. Fernandes filed an ex parte motion for a subpoena to obtain two pre-sentence investigation reports (PSIs) from a prior New York State criminal case involving a potential witness. The reports, dated April 5, 2000, and September 24, 2002, are deemed confidential under New York Criminal Procedure Law § 390.50, which restricts access to PSIs without specific court authorization or statutory permission. The court denied the motion, citing that PSIs cannot be disclosed in collateral proceedings unless a factual need is demonstrated. Existing case law emphasizes that defendants cannot access PSIs from other proceedings for impeachment purposes without a substantial factual showing. Additionally, the court overseeing the current matter lacks the authority to release these PSIs, as only the court that prepared the PSI can grant such requests.
Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c) governs subpoenas for document and object production prior to trial, requiring the requesting party to demonstrate: (1) the relevance and evidentiary nature of the documents; (2) that they cannot be reasonably obtained in advance through due diligence; (3) that the party cannot adequately prepare for trial without them, potentially causing unreasonable trial delays; and (4) that the request is made in good faith, not as a broad discovery tool. The Supreme Court's standards from United States v. Nixon emphasize three criteria: relevancy, admissibility, and specificity. Courts must ensure that Rule 17(c) is not misused as a discovery device, as emphasized in United States v. Cuthbertson. While a defendant may issue a Rule 17(c) subpoena, it is intended to expedite trial preparation by allowing pretrial inspection of admissible evidence, not to serve as additional discovery. The burden of showing good cause for the subpoena lies with the requesting party, and courts have the authority to quash or modify such requests.
Regarding the defendant's request for Presentence Investigative Reports (PSIs), this request must be denied as PSIs are generated under state law, considered confidential, and not generally discoverable in collateral proceedings. Their disclosure is limited to the sentencing court, and even if a federal court had the authority to order their production, it must respect New York’s confidentiality policies. State privacy rules can indicate significant privacy interests that the court should not overlook.
In Haus v. City of N.Y., the court addressed a civil rights case where the plaintiffs sought to unseal data worksheets from the district attorney, which were protected under state sealing statutes. The court emphasized that federal courts should respect state privileges and laws regarding confidential materials, aligning with federal interests. In a habeas corpus context, the court denied a request for disclosure of a presentence investigation report (PSI), citing strict regulations governing access to such reports and the lack of a valid factual basis for the defendant's request. The defendant's motion was characterized as a fishing expedition, lacking specific relevance to current criminal proceedings, and suggesting a connection to events from over a decade prior.
The court stated that any potential evidentiary value of the PSIs would be undermined due to their inadmissibility for impeachment purposes under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(b), which restricts the use of prior convictions over ten years old. Furthermore, to qualify for a Rule 17(c) subpoena, materials must be admissible in evidence, a condition not met by the PSIs in this case. Although some courts have suggested a less stringent standard for subpoenas directed at third parties, the Second Circuit has not adopted such an approach, maintaining the Nixon standard for evidentiary materials. Therefore, the defendant's motion for a subpoena duces tecum was denied, with the court intending to publicly file its decision to maintain a clear record, to which defense counsel raised no objection.
