K.K. v. USDC-HI

Filing

FILED PER CURIAM OPINION (RONALD M. GOULD, MARY H. MURGUIA and PAUL J. WATFORD) DENIED. FILED AND ENTERED JUDGMENT. [9152190]

Case: 14-71875

07/01/2014

ID: 9152190

DktEntry: 9

Page: 1 of 4

FILED
FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

JUL 01 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: K.K.

No. 14-71875

K.K.,

D.C. No. 1:13-cr-00735-LEK-1
1:14-mc-00102-LEK
1:14-mc-00119-LEK
Petitioner,
OPINION

v.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII,
Respondent,
GERARD K. PUANA,
Real Party in Interest.

Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 27, 2014*
Filed July 1, 2014

*

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Case: 14-71875

07/01/2014

ID: 9152190

DktEntry: 9

Page: 2 of 4

Before: GOULD, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This is a petition for a writ of mandamus filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3771,
the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (“CVRA”). Petitioner, a victim of a mailbox theft
crime, challenges district court orders issued on June 13, and June 18, 2014,
denying in part motions to quash two subpoenas duces tecum whose issuance
defendant has requested under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c)(3).
In reviewing CVRA mandamus petitions, we are not required to balance the
factors outlined in Bauman v. United States District Court, 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir.
1977). See Kenna v. U.S. Dist. Court, 435 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2006).
Rather, this court “must issue the writ whenever we find that the district court’s
order reflects an abuse of discretion or legal error.” Id.
The district court did not abuse its discretion or commit legal error in
denying the motions to quash. The information sought by defendant meets the
standard for issuing a Rule 17(c) subpoena. See United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S.
683, 699-700 (1974) (stating standard). Furthermore, in ordering production of the
requested documents, the district court appropriately balanced the victim’s privacy
interests against the defendant’s right to “investigate the case and prepare a defense
for trial.” Michigan v. Harvey, 494 U.S. 344, 348 (1990). Finding no abuse of
2

Case: 14-71875

07/01/2014

ID: 9152190

DktEntry: 9

Page: 3 of 4

discretion or legal error, the petition for a writ of mandamus pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3771 is denied.
However, given the sensitive nature of the documents sought, production
and disclosure of the documents on July 2, 2014 shall initially be limited to the
district court. The district court shall then conduct an in camera review of the
produced documents to determine whether, in light of the information they contain
and their relevancy to the issues to be raised at trial, their disclosure to defense
counsel would be “unreasonable or oppressive” under Rule 17(c)(2), such that
production to defense counsel should be denied. Upon review of the documents in
camera, the district court may place additional limits on defense counsel’s use of
the documents at trial.
DENIED.

3

Case: 14-71875

07/01/2014

ID: 9152190

DktEntry: 9

Page: 4 of 4

Counsel Listing
Kevin Paul Hisami Sumida, Sumida & Associates LLLC, Honolulu, Hawaii, for
Petitioner.
Peter C. Wolff, Jr., Federal Public Defender, and Alexander Silvert, First Assistant
Federal Defender, Honolulu, Hawaii, for Real Party in Interest Gerard K. Puana.

4