Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 183 views

    D.Ariz. - 2-16-cr-01012 - 178 ORDER Granting Motion To Quash PDF

    Uploaded by

    Jack Ryan
    The court document discusses a motion by the government to quash a subpoena issued by the defendant to Attorney General Jeff Sessions. The government argues that the Attorney General's testimony is not relevant and does not meet the standard for compelling testimony from a high-ranking official. The court agrees, finding that the defendant has not shown how the Attorney General's statements from 2017 are relevant to immigration policy from 2011-2013, which is what the case involves. The court therefore grants the motion to quash the subpoena.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    D.Ariz. - 2-16-cr-01012 - 178 ORDER Granting Motion To Quash PDF

    Uploaded by

    Jack Ryan
    183 views3 pages
    The court document discusses a motion by the government to quash a subpoena issued by the defendant to Attorney General Jeff Sessions. The government argues that the Attorney General's testimony is not relevant and does not meet the standard for compelling testimony from a high-ranking official. The court agrees, finding that the defendant has not shown how the Attorney General's statements from 2017 are relevant to immigration policy from 2011-2013, which is what the case involves. The court therefore grants the motion to quash the subpoena.

    Original Title

    D.Ariz._2-16-cr-01012_178 ORDER Granting Motion to Quash.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The court document discusses a motion by the government to quash a subpoena issued by the defendant to Attorney General Jeff Sessions. The government argues that the Attorney General's testimony is not relevant and does not meet the standard for compelling testimony from a high-ranking official. The court agrees, finding that the defendant has not shown how the Attorney General's statements from 2017 are relevant to immigration policy from 2011-2013, which is what the case involves. The court therefore grants the motion to quash the subpoena.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    183 views3 pages

    D.Ariz. - 2-16-cr-01012 - 178 ORDER Granting Motion To Quash PDF

    Uploaded by

    Jack Ryan
    The court document discusses a motion by the government to quash a subpoena issued by the defendant to Attorney General Jeff Sessions. The government argues that the Attorney General's testimony is not relevant and does not meet the standard for compelling testimony from a high-ranking official. The court agrees, finding that the defendant has not shown how the Attorney General's statements from 2017 are relevant to immigration policy from 2011-2013, which is what the case involves. The court therefore grants the motion to quash the subpoena.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    Case 2:16-cr-01012-SRB Document 178 Filed 06/27/17 Page 1 of 3

    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
    8
    9 United States of America, No. CR-16-01012-001-PHX-SRB
    10 Plaintiff, ORDER
    11 v.
    12 Joseph M. Arpaio,
    13 Defendant.
    14
    15 At issue is the Governments Motion to Quash Defendants Trial Subpoena to U.S.
    16 Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions (Mot.) (Doc. 161).
    17 The Government moves to quash the subpoena Defendant served on Attorney
    18 General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions arguing that his testimony is neither relevant nor
    19 meets the demanding standard required to compel the testimony of a high-ranking
    20 official. (Mot. at 2.) Defendant argues that the Attorney Generals testimony is necessary
    21 because he makes all determinations with respect to all questions of law on behalf of
    22 the Department of Homeland security (Border Patrol and ICE) and his statements
    23 constitute admissions of a party opponent. (Doc. 167, Def.s Resp. to Mot (Resp.) at 2-
    24 3.) Defendant further argues that this is an extraordinary case because Plaintiff is
    25 prosecuting the former head of law enforcement in the fourth most-populous county in
    26 the United States, for merely cooperating with Plaintiff in federal law enforcement. (Id.
    27 at 3-4.)
    28
    Case 2:16-cr-01012-SRB Document 178 Filed 06/27/17 Page 2 of 3

    1
    It is a settled rule in [the Fifth Circuit] that exceptional circumstances must
    2 exist before the involuntary depositions of high agency officials are
    permitted. In re Office of Inspector General, 933 F.2d 276, 278 (5th Cir.
    3 1991) (per curiam) (citing EEOC v. KMart, 694 F.2d 1055, 106768 (6th
    Cir. 1982)). [T]op executive department officials should not, absent
    4 extraordinary circumstances, be called to testify regarding their reasons for
    taking official actions. Id. (quoting Simplex Time Recorder Co. v.
    5 Secretary of Labor, 766 F.2d 575, 586 (D.C. Cir. 1985)). High ranking
    government officials have greater duties and time constraints than other
    6 witnesses. In re United States, 985 F.2d 510, 512 (11th Cir.) (per
    curiam), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 989, 114 S.Ct. 545, 126 L.Ed.2d 447
    7 (1993). [T]he Supreme Court has indicated that the practice of calling high
    officials as witnesses should be discouraged. Id. (citing United States v.
    8 Morgan, 313 U.S. 409, 61 S. Ct. 999, 85 L.Ed. 1429 (1941)).
    9 In re F.D.I.C., 58 F.3d 1055, 1060 (5th Cir. 1995).
    10 The Court is unaware, and Defendant has not supplied, any support for his legal
    11 proposition that exceptional circumstances need not be shown by him before permitting
    12 the subpoena of the Attorney General and Defendant has not met that burden here. First,
    13 this case encompasses the actions of Defendant arising out his alleged violation of a 2011
    14 preliminary injunction order and its alleged continued violation until 2013. Defendant has
    15 not shown the relevance of the current Attorney Generals position on federal
    16 immigration policies from 2011 to 2013 when he was not appointed until February 2017.
    17 Attorney General Sessions 2017 statements regarding the United States current policy
    18 are irrelevant to the United States policy between 2011 and 2013. Furthermore,
    19 Defendant has not argued or shown that Attorney General Sessions has knowledge of the
    20 United States policy on immigration during the relevant 2011 to 2013 timeframe. In re
    21 U.S., 542 F. Appx 944, 948 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (In deciding whether that burden has been
    22 met, courts have held that the government official must have personal involvement or
    23 first-hand knowledge of the underlying dispute.). The Court therefore quashes
    24 Defendants trial subpoena for Attorney General Jeffrey Beauregard Sessions.
    25 IT IS ORDERED granting Governments Motion to Quash Defendants Trial
    26 Subpoena to U.S. Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions (Doc. 161).
    27 ///
    28 ///

    -2-
    Case 2:16-cr-01012-SRB Document 178 Filed 06/27/17 Page 3 of 3

    1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED quashing Defendants Trial Subpoena to U.S.


    2 Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions.
    3 Dated this 27th day of June, 2017.
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    12
    13
    14
    15
    16
    17
    18
    19
    20
    21
    22
    23
    24
    25
    26
    27
    28

    -3-

    You might also like