In Re: Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated March 25, 2011, USA v. John Doe

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that compelling a defendant to produce data protected by his password without providing constitutionally sufficient immunity violates the Fifth Amendment
• holding that if the “location, existence, and authenticity” of the evidence sought is already known “with reasonable particularity,” Fifth Amendment protection is no longer available
• concluding that the foregone conclusion exception did not apply where the government could not show that it knew “whether any files exist and are located on the hard drives”
• concluding that “[njothing in the record before us reveals that the Government knows whether any files exist and are located on the hard drives” where the Government requested production of the contents of the hard drives
• holding that the foregone conclusion doctrine was inapplicable where the government had not shown that it possessed knowledge as to the \files on the [encrypted] hard drives at the time it attempted to compel production.\
• holding that foregone conclusion exception did not apply to compelled production of encrypted files because government could not show with “reasonable particularity” that files existed on the drive to which the individual who was subpoenaed had access

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).