In re Grand Jury Subpoena Dated August 9, 2000

218 F. Supp. 2d 544 (2002)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

In re Grand Jury Subpoena Dated August 9, 2000

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
218 F. Supp. 2d 544 (2002)

  • Written by Alexander Hager-DeMyer, JD

Facts

A New York corporation (corporation) (defendant) was a banking firm with offices in the United States and in a foreign country (republic). A grand jury in New York’s southern district began investigating allegations that the corporation bribed republic officials to help other United States companies gain access to the republic’s natural resources in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. To further its investigation, the grand jury issued a subpoena for the corporation’s business records. The corporation refused to produce large quantities of the records, claiming that many of the documents in the United States were protected under the republic’s executive-privilege laws and that the records located in the republic could not be produced without violating the republic’s laws. After the subpoena was issued, the corporation’s officers inquired with republic officials to see what protections republic law had for the requested documents. The republic’s officials, including legal officers, stated that any documents related to the interests of the state could not be produced or removed from the republic without permission from the republic’s government. The United States government (government) (plaintiff) put pressure on the corporation to produce the relevant documents, and the republic’s officials issued warnings to the United States and to the corporation, including threats of possible incarceration for violating republic law. Both the corporation and the republic made unsuccessful efforts to persuade the United States government to stop the investigation. The government filed a motion to compel the corporation to cooperate with the subpoena and produce the designated documents. The court determined that the documents were not protected under the state-secrets privilege and then balanced the competing interests of the United States and the republic.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Chin, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership