## Facts

- Ronald McClure, Jr. was indicted in federal court on charges including felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, kidnapping, retaliating against a witness, and sex trafficking of children.
- In the pretrial phase, the government sought to bar the defense from using ex parte, early-return subpoenas duces tecum under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c).
- The government argued that such subpoenas were being used to seek confidential records about minor victims and juvenile witnesses (including juvenile court and child protective services files).
- The defense asserted that ex parte issuance could be necessary to avoid disclosing defense theories and impeachment strategy and to obtain specific evidence for trial.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant may seek Rule 17(c) subpoenas ex parte and returnable before trial, and under what conditions.
2. Whether, and how, a court should limit subpoenas aimed at confidential juvenile and child-victim records while preserving the defendant’s ability to obtain material evidence.

## Decision

- The court declined to impose an across-the-board prohibition on ex parte Rule 17(c) subpoenas.
- The court held that ex parte Rule 17(c) subpoenas could be permitted only when the proponent satisfies the *Nixon* requirements and makes a specific showing of a need for confidentiality.
- The court emphasized heightened caution when subpoenas target sensitive records of minor victims and juvenile witnesses and indicated that protective measures may be appropriate.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 17(c) subpoenas are not a discovery device; they require a showing of relevance, admissibility, and specificity under *United States v. Nixon*.
- Ex parte Rule 17(c) subpoenas may be authorized as a matter of district court discretion when the requesting party demonstrates a need for confidentiality.
- A need for confidentiality may exist where notice would reveal the requesting party’s theory of the case or trial strategy.
- When the requested materials involve confidential juvenile or child-victim records, courts must balance the defendant’s ability to obtain specific, admissible evidence against privacy and confidentiality protections, and may condition access through tools such as in camera review, redaction, or protective orders.

## Conclusion

The court rejected a categorical ban on ex parte, early-return Rule 17(c) subpoenas, but required both compliance with the *Nixon* standard and a concrete showing that confidentiality was necessary, with added safeguards when subpoenas seek sensitive records concerning minors.


United States v. McClure, No. 2:08-CR-00100-WBS, 2009 WL 937502 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2009)