J
THU
9:30 MIKE KINGSTON
P.
JUL 04 '91 08:36
BOASE & COHEN 852-5295035
168 P12
07. 03. 91
12:47 PM
P12
adoption of the Criminal Rules in their entirety for all discovery
to be taken under the Orders.
However, the orders indicate that Rule 17(0) was to apply
to the issuance of subpoenas to appear and produce documents and
physical evidence," and not to the "obtain[ing] of testimony and
other evidence," suggesting that only limited application of the C Criminal Rules was contemplated. This conclusion is also supported
by the fact that Rule 17 (0) itself concerns only subpoenas for the
production of physical evidence, and has no relation to the deposition process. Finally, the Government's use of Deposition
Notices which referred to Civil Rule 30 (b) (6) belies a clear intent to apply the Criminal Rules to the deposition process.‘
し
D1 Even Under the Criminal Rules Osman Would Have Been Entitled to Notice.
More problematic for the Government's position is the fact that even if the orders had adopted the Criminal Rules in their entirety Osman would still have been entitled to notice of the depositions. While it is true that Rule 17 does not call for notice to all parties of the issuance of subpoenas, either for the
The Government contends that its usa
that its use of civil Deposition Notices was simply inadvertent, and that the erroneous use of thes
However, notices does not overcome the wording of the orders. where it is the meaning of the orders which is itself in issue, the Government's decision, inadvertent or not, to rely on the Civi: Rules must be taken as
as evidence of its interpretation of the
Orders.
9
16