In Re Grand Jury No. 76-3 (Mia) Subpoena Duces Tecum. The Second National Bank of North Miami v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that “in the main run of cases the cost of compliance will be assumed as part of the public duty of providing evidence”
• stating that \in the main run of cases the cost of compliance will be assumed as part of the public duty of providing evidence\
• rejecting “any assertion that a potential witness has some sort of ‘right’ to be reimbursed for his expenses in testifying. The same must be true for the production of documents” especially in cases involving records, sought under the Bank Secrecy Act
• court may consider consequences of copying costs only after it has determined that production of original documents is practical impossibility
• “As a general rule, a witness or the recipient of a subpoena duces tecum is required to bear the costs of compliance.”
• no entitlement to reimbursement for cost of complying with subpoena duces tecum

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).