Decision and Order On Motion To Quash Defendant's Subpoena, People v. Trump, IND-71543-2023 (NYS Trial Div., Apr. 5, 2024)

Str'PRtrME COLJRT OF THE STATI] OF NEW YORK
COLJNTY OF NE!7 YORK: PART 59
THE, Ptr,OPLtr, OF TFItr, STA]'E, OI_.- Ntr,\)r YORK DE,CISION AND ORDtr,R
oN MOTTON TO QTJASH
agamst DE,FE,NDANT'S SIJBPOE,NA
AND FORA PROTtr,CTIVtr,
DONALDJ.TRUMP, ORDE,R
Defendant. Ind. No . 71543 /2023
HON.JTJAN M. MtrRCFrAN A.J.S.C.
On Apdl 4,2023, Donaid |.'Irump, the Defendant, was araigned before this Court on an
indictment charging hrm with 34 counts of Falsi$ring Business Records in the First Degtee, in violation
of PenalLaw S 175.10. On Match 1l,2o24,Defendantissued a subpoena duces tecumto NBC Universal
(heteinafter "NBCU") seeking all matedais telated to the documentary film tided "Stotmy"
ftereinafter "Document^ry") that involves a witness in the instant matter, Stormy Daniels (hereinafter
"Daniels"). ()n March 20,2024, NBCU filed a motion to quash the subpoena. I)efendant responded
on Match 27 , 2024 and NBCU filcd a reply on Apnl 1,2024.
MotroN To QUASH
CPL S 610.20 ptovides that any party to a criminal proceeding may issue a subpoena. CPL S
610.20(3) specifrcally provides that an attorney for a defendant in a cdminal action may issue a
subpoena of any wi.tness rn'hom the defendant is cntrded to call in such action or proceeding. f'o
"sustain a subpoena," the issuing party must demonstrate "that the testimony or evidence sought is
reasonablv likely to be relevant and marerial to the proceedings and that the subpoena is not overbroad
or unreasonably burdensome." ,S'ee LPL S 610.20(4); rce aln, People u. Ko7fowski,11 NY3d 223,242
[2008] (the proper purpose of a subpoena duces terum is to compel the production of specific documents
thar are relevant andmateial to facts at issue in a judicial ptoceedrng). When disputes arise concerning
the "validity or propriety" of a subpoena, the court must r:esolve rvhether the subpoena is enforceable.
ee Application of Dauis,88 N{isc2d 938, 940 [Crim. Ct. N.Y-. Co. 1,976]; see also, People u. Natal,75 NY2d
79, 385 [1990]. Because the subpoenaed materials ate returnable to the court, it follows that the court
s the ultimate authotity on rhe outer parameters of the subpoena powefs. See People a. D.N.,62
544 [Cm. Ct. N.Y. Co. 2018], interualfi dting Matter of Tery D., 87 NY2d 1042 11993).
t
The Cout of Appeals has held that a subpoena is proper\ quashed when the party issuing the
subpoena fails "to demonstrate any theolT of relevancy and mateiahty, butinstead, merely desire[s]
the opportunity for an unrestrained fotay into confidential records in the hope that the unearthing of
some unspecified information [u'ill1 cnable [them] to impeach witness[es]." People u. Gisendanner,4S
NY2d 543,549 [19791. A subpoena Cuces tecum may not genetally be "used for the pwpose of discovery
or to ascertain the existence of cvidence." Id. at 551,. Conversely, courts have denied a motion to
quash where the subpoena demands llroduction of specrfic documents which ate televantand material
to the ptoceedings. See People il. Dxtfttn,32 Misc3d 225,229 [Cdm. Ct. I(ngs Co.2071.,Lapotte,Jl ('the
defendant established that the solicitcd data is relevant and material to the determrnauon of guilt or
innocence, and not sought solell, in the speculative hope of finding possible impeachment of witness'
general ctedibility"); People a. CanJnne//a,27 Misc3d 737 [Dist. Ct. Suffolk Co. 2009, Horowitz, J].
\When deciding a motion to quash a subpoena, "access must be afforded to ...data relevant
and matedal to the detetminauon of guilt or innocence, as, for example, when a request for access is
directed towatd tevealing specific 'biases, prejudices or ulterior motives of the witness as they may
relate directlv to issues or personalities in the casc. at hand' or when it involves other infotmation
which if knorvn to the tdet of fact, could very well affect the outcome of the trial .. . there is no such
compulsion when tequests to exarninc recotds are rnotrvated by nothing more than tmpeachment of
witnesses'general credibility." Pi.ople t. Gissendanner at 548, quotingDauit u. Alatka,415 US 308,31,6
[1974]. Thus, this Court must detc.i:rni11e, among othcr things, whether the subpoena seeks information
to be used for impeachment of geueral ctedibiJity or is instead drrected towards revealing specific
biases, prejudices or ulterior morives related direcdy to personalities or issues in the instant matter;
whethet the solicited infotmation is material to thc question of guilt or innocence, or nothing more
than a 'fishing expedition.'
The Civil Rights Law "provides a statutory exemption from contempt fol professional
joutnaU.sts, newscasters andtheit supewisors and employers." 8L NY Jur Newspapers $ 30. "New
York's -shield I-aw provides journalists an absolute pdvilege from testifi,ing with regard to news
obtained under a promise of conficlt-'ntiahty but only a qualified privilege with regard to ne\tr's that is
both unpublished and not obtaincd under a promisc of confidentiality." Baker a. Goldman Sachs eb Co.,
669 F3d 105 [2d Cft. 201,2] eiting toNY Civil fughts Law $79-h. A party seeking unpublished "news"
maY overcome the qualified priril<:ge by making "a cl,eat and specific showrng that the news: (i) is
highly material and televant; (ri) is criucal or necessarf.' to the maintenance of a parw's claim, defense
or ptoof of an issue material thcreto; and (iii) is not obtainable from any alternative source. 1/. NY
2
Civil Rights Law $ 79-h(c) "estabiished the qualified ptivrlege as to nonconfidential news by requiring
disclosure of nonconficiential matcr.'ial only as a last rynrt. Matter of Ameicaru Brvadca$ingCompanies, Inc.,
Corucerning the People of the State of Neu, \''ork a. Steuen (rua et al., Delendants, 189 Misc2d 805 [Sup Ct NY
Cnty October 1,,20011, (emphasis rn odginal).
DlscussroN
For the following two rca-(ons, non-parg' NBC Universal's motion to quash the instant
subpoena is GRANI-ED ifl its entiretv"
Fitst, Defendant's reque.st. seeks all documents "that relate to the Documentary and one or
more of the following topics: (a) thc ptemiere of the Documentary, (b) the release date of the
Documentary. (.) editing of the l)ocumentary, (d) promotion of the Documentarf , (e) marketing of
the Documentary, (0 ury form of cr.rmpensati.on to Stephanie Clifford telating to the Documentary,
G) ,ry rights to the Documentary maintained by Stephanie Clifford, (h) agreements between
Stephanie Clifford and NBCtIniversal or any of its aftiliates, (p) the trial rn People a. Trump,Indictment
Number 71543-23, involvrng ch'.u:g<:s filed by the Nlanhattan District Attorney's Office, (d Michael
Cohen, and (r) DonaldJ. Trump." trxhibit E, Afftmariorr oiAlexandra M. Settelmaverl.
Unlike the subpoena in Koi,'r;u;ksz, which Defendant relies upon, the instant subpoena is far
tc"ro btoad and seeks general discovcr',," lnKo{ow:kz, the court held that the subpoena met the "minimal
thteshold necessary" fot enforcerneot, but the requests there wete highly specific and narrow-ly
tailoted. Ko{ow:ki 869 NYS2d at 242. The defendants in Kozlowski made requests that sought
"specifically identifred statements." Ko4fowski,^t235.In the instant mattet, the Defendant seeks "all"
documents, including but not lirnited to vague and overbroad requests for "the trial in People u. Tramp,
Indictment Number 7 1. 5 43 -23."

Defendant claims that thr: rnaterials sought bl the subpoena will establish collusion between
NBCU and Daniels telating'to the teiease date of r,he do,cumentary. Defendant argues that NBCU
and.Daniels consptred to release rhe l)ocumefitary as close to the start date of this trial as possible to
prejudice Defendant and maximizc theu own financial interests. Eefendant's Opposition at pgs. 5-7.
NBCU argues that Defendant's clair',rs are devoid of factual support or corroborauon. NBCU Reply
Memo at pg. 1. The affirmation of Erica Forstadt, Senior Vice President of Production and
Deveiopment at NBC Univer-.a! i\{e,,lia, LLC, indicates that Daniels had no'"right to approve the
l The Defendant has withdrawn requests 1(i)

- 1(o) of the subpoena duces tecum.See Defendant's Opposition at
pg. 1, n 1.
3
content of the Documentary or the timing of its telease." Id. Because Defendant's claims are purely
speculative and unsupported, his subpoena and the demands therein are the very definition of a frshing
expedruon.
Second, even if this Cout wefe to find that I)efendant's request w-as not speculative, or that
it seeks general discovery, NBCUnivetsal's motion nonetheless would be granted because Defendant
sceks unfetteted access to the notes and materials of a media orgatizaion in violauon of Civil Rights
Law $ 79-h.
Thrs Court has consideted Defendant's explanation for seeking this Court's permission to rifle
through the pdvileged documents of a news orgarizatton and finds that he has not shouldered the
very heavy butden necessary to overcome NY Civil Rrghrs Law $ 79-h.
'fire foregoitg constitutes the l)ecision and Order of this Court.
April 5, ?,024
Neu,' Yolk, Nerv Yc-,rk
1\,I.
APR 0
5 ?021 l US tice o the Suprerne Court
Judge oi the Cc-'urt of Clarms
Ho,fl.4. p69ffiffi

Decision and Order On Motion To Quash Defendant's Subpoena, People v. Trump, IND-71543-2023 (NYS Trial Div., Apr. 5, 2024)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Decision and Order On Motion To Quash Defendant's Subpoena, People v. Trump, IND-71543-2023 (NYS Trial Div., Apr. 5, 2024)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Decision and Order On Motion To Quash Defendant's Subpoena, People v. Trump, IND-71543-2023 (NYS Trial Div., Apr. 5, 2024)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Str'PRtrME COLJRT OF THE STATI] OF NEW YORK

COLJNTY OF NE!7 YORK: PART 59

Defendant. Ind. No . 71543 /2023

HON.JTJAN M. MtrRCFrAN A.J.S.C.

Cnty October 1,,20011, (emphasis rn odginal).

Indictment Number 7 1. 5 43 -23."

l The Defendant has withdrawn requests 1(i)

'fire foregoitg constitutes the l)ecision and Order of this Court.

You might also like