Bolden v. United States
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondents motion to quash [Doc. #179] is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the subpoena served on the Custodian of Attorney Continuing Legal Education Records for the Missouri State Bar is quashed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that movants motion for leave to file a surreply [Doc. #185] is moot. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 7/7/2014. (KMS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
ROBERT BOLDEN, SR.,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Case No. 4:10-CV-2288 (CEJ)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on respondent’s motion to quash a subpoena
issued by movant upon the Custodian of Attorney Continuing Legal Education Records
of the Missouri State Bar. The subpoena requests production of “all records of the
Continuing Legal Education programs involving jury selection attended by Michael
Reilly... and Steven Holtshouser... from 1990 to 2006.” See Doc. #179-1. Mr. Reilly
and Mr. Holtshouser are Assistant United States Attorneys who prosecuted the
underlying criminal case against movant Robert Bolden, Jr.
Movant seeks to obtain
these records to support Claim III of his motion to vacate, in which he asserts a claim
based on Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).
Respondent argues that the
subpoena should be quashed because (1) movant did not provide notice of service of
the subpoena, (2) the materials subpoenaed are beyond the scope of discovery
authorized by Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, and (3) the
materials are not relevant.
Failure to Provide Notice
Pursuant to Rule 45(a)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a copy of a
subpoena must be served on each party to the case prior to service on the person to
whom it is directed. Movant failed to provide notice and a copy of the subpoena to
respondent. Rather, the Missouri State Bar notified respondent of the existence of the
subpoena. Movant is mistaken in his belief that Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(a)(4) does not apply
to Section 2255 proceedings. The very subpoena issued by the Clerk of Court clearly
states the text of that rule. See Doc. #179-1. Movant is now on notice that he must
comply with this rule throughout the discovery process.
Scope of Rule 6(a)
The Court granted movant leave to conduct discovery on his claims pursuant to
Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings. Respondent’s argument
that petitioner is not entitled to discovery on his claims is akin to a motion to
reconsider the Court’s prior order granting leave to conduct discovery. A motion to
quash is not an appropriate vehicle for relitigating issues that have already been
Thus, the Court will not consider respondent’s argument on this point.
Under Rule 17(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, subpoenaed
documents must be relevant. See United States v. Cole, No. 09-193 (MJD/AJB), 2010
WL 1526488, at *1 (D. Min. Apr. 15, 2010) (citing United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S.
683, 698-99 (1974)).
Movant failed to address respondent’s argument that the
Missouri Bar Continuing Legal Education (CLE) records for programs involving jury
selection attended by Mr. Reilly and Mr. Holtshouser are not relevant to his claims.
The subpoenaed CLE records—which would only serve to reveal whether or not counsel
attended any programs on jury selection—have no bearing on the issue of whether
improper jury selection occurred in movant’s case.
Because the subpoenaed
documents are not relevant, the subpoena will be quashed.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondent’s motion to quash [Doc. #179] is
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the subpoena served on the Custodian of
Attorney Continuing Legal Education Records for the Missouri State Bar is quashed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that movant’s motion for leave to file a surreply
[Doc. #185] is moot.
CAROL E. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 7th day of July, 2014.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?