United States District Court, D. Kansas
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
D. Mitchell U.S. Magistrate Judge
matter comes before the court on non-party CoreCivic
Leavenworth Detention Center's (“CoreCivic”)
Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum. (ECF No. 34.) For the
reasons discussed below, CoreCivic's motion is denied.
March 6, 2019, defendant Ryan Hawley was indicted with one
charge of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) and 924(a)(2). On
July 9, 2019, an information was filed amending this charge;
Mr. Hawley waived indictment and pleaded guilty to this
amended charge. The court has not yet scheduled his
September 12, 2019, Mr. Hawley filed a Motion for Production
of Documents and Objects Pursuant to Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure 17(b) and (c). (ECF No. 30.) The motion
requested that the court issue a subpoena to CoreCivic for
the following materials:
(1) Video showing the interior of M Pod on September 2, 2019;
(2) Videos showing the interiors of all segregation cells on
September 2, 2019;
(3) All disciplinary records for inmate Ryan Hawley (Reg. No.
(4) All records and reports related to, describing, or
relevant to an assault on Ryan Hawley in the segregation unit
of CCA Leavenworth (rebranded as CoreCivic).
(Id. at 1-2.) Mr. Hawley contended that these
materials relate to an instance where he was harmed in
custody and are “directly relevant to sentencing in
this matter, as the intensity of punishment (including the
conditions of confinement) is as relevant as its
length.” (Id. at 2.)
presiding U.S. District Judge Holly L. Teeter granted Mr.
Hawley's motion, finding his subpoena request met the
relevance, materiality, and specificity thresholds required
under Rule 17(c) and United States v. Nixon, 418
U.S. 683 (1974). (ECF No. 31), at 1.) A subpoena was issued
that requires CoreCivic to produce the materials sought.
(See Id. at 2.) The court directed CoreCivic to
comply with the subpoena on or before September 26, 2019.
September 24, 2019, CoreCivic filed a motion to quash the
subpoena. (ECF No. 34.) CoreCivic's motion argues that
Mr. Hawley's subpoena seeks information that is not
relevant or necessary to prepare an adequate defense.
(Id. at 2-3.) CoreCivic also contends that Mr.
Hawley's requests are not sufficiently specific, and that
he is engaging in an improper fishing expedition designed to
gather information that supports civil claims he may have
against CoreCivic relating to the conditions of his
confinement. (See Id. at 3-4.)