In Re: Subpoena Duces Tecum Gould v. Williams

Filing 9

ORDER granting 7 Motion to Quash. The Court QUASHES the state court subpoena. See Order for details. Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 4/30/14. (klh, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
IN RE: SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
PATRICK J. GOULD,
Petitioner,
v.

No. 14-MC-035-DRH

KEVIN C. WILLIAMS,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HERNDON, Chief Judge:
Pending before the Court is the government’s motion to quash a state court
subpoena issued to Steven D. Weinhoeft in his official capacity as an Assistant
United States Attorney (Doc. 7). Petitioner Gould opposes the motion. Based on
the reasons stated in the government’s motion and the following, the Court
GRANTS the motion to quash state subpoena.
Petitioner Patrick Gould served a state court subpoena on Steven D.
Weinhoeft, an Assistant United States Attorney, in connection with his civil lawsuit
against Kevin C. Williams pending in the Wabash County, Illinois Circuit Court.
See Gould v. Williams, No. 12-OP-11. 1 Gould is the trustee and power of attorney
for the estate of E.S., the victim of Williams’ fraudulent transactions in the criminal
1 AUSA Weinhoeft was assigned to the criminal prosecution of Williams in the United States Court
for the Southern District of Illinois. See United States v. Williams, 13-cr-40019-JPG. Williams
pled guilty and was sentenced to 120 months imprisonment in November 2013. Further, the Court
ordered him to pay a cumulative total of $1,880,602.99 in restitution.

Page 1 of 3

matter. The subpoena seeks documents purportedly held by AUSA Weinhoeft from
the criminal case.

After receiving the state court subpoena, the government

informed Gould’s attorney, Eric Bramlet, that it would not comply with the state
court subpoena and that it no longer had the records sought in the subpoena as the
records were sent to the Internal Revenue Service. Thereafter, the government
removed the matter to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) (Doc. 2).
The government now moves to quash the state subpoena (Doc. 7) and Gould
opposes the motion (Doc. 8). Based on the reasons stated in the government’s
motion to quash and the following, the Court grants the motion.
In Edwards v. United States Dept. of Justice, the Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals concluded that a state court lacked jurisdiction to compel the DOJ to
respond to a subpoena seeking surveillance videos in connection with a
post-conviction proceeding. Edwards, 43 F.3d 312, 317 (7th Cir. 1994). Citing
United States ex rel. Touhy v. Raqen, 340 U.S. 462, 71 S.Ct. 416, 95 L.Ed. 417
(1951), the Edwards Court held that “a federal employee cannot be compelled to
obey a subpoena, even a federal subpoena, that acts against valid agency
regulations.” Edwards, 43 F.3d at 317; see also Boron Oil Co. v. Downie, 873
P.2d 67, 69–70 (4th Cir.1989) (“Touhy is part of an unbroken line of authority
which directly supports Downie's contention that a federal employee may not be
compelled to obey a subpoena contrary to his federal employer's instructions
under valid regulations.”).
Further, the doctrine of sovereign immunity prohibits state courts from
Page 2 of 3

enforcing subpoenas against “unwilling federal officers.” See Edwards, 43 F.3d at
317 (“[T]he cases involving § 1442(a) removals of state subpoena proceedings
against unwilling federal officers have held that sovereign immunity bars the
enforcement of the subpoena.”). Further, the record does not reveal that the federal
government has “unequivocally” waived sovereign immunity with respect to
the subpoena, (Edwards, 43 F.3d at 317). Therefore, sovereign immunity bars
enforcement of the subpoena. See Edwards, 43 F.3d at 317. On removal
under § 1442(a), our jurisdiction is “derivative” of the state court's jurisdiction: “if
the state court lacks the jurisdiction to enforce the subpoenas the district court will
be in no better position than the state court in enforcing the subpoenas once the
case is removed to federal court.” Id. at 316. Thus, the Court lacks jurisdiction to
enforce the subpoena.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to quash state subpoena
(Doc. 7).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Digitally signed by
David R. Herndon
Date: 2014.04.30
15:43:32 -05'00'

Signed this 30th day of April, 2014.

Chief Judge
United States District Court

Page 3 of 3