E.D. California· 6/30/1997

United States v. Tomison

Citations

969 F. Supp. 587
97 Daily Journal DAR 12806
1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9429
1997 WL 369461

How courts have described this case

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

holding that Rule 17(c) permits ex parte applications, noting that “[j]ust because the decision to allow pretrial production is left to the court does not mean that it should be heard in an adversary proceeding.”
considering the constitutional context of the federal counterpart to M.R.Crim. P. 17(d)
“Given that this is pretrial production process, it hardly fits as an historically open proceeding.”
“a subpoena returnable before trial will avoid delay in the government’s prosecution of the case”
“As the Supreme Court has explained, it is the responsibility of the court, not the opposing party, to ensure that a subpoena secured under Rule 17(c) is for a proper purpose.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Karlton

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

23 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

51 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.