No "ex" just that you aren't a parte' – Moultrie responds to Carothers motion to quash

As a hungry non-lawyer, I take exception to Rule 3F – file at five Friday.

It’s now past 6:30 and I’ve just finished pulling, reading and posting Moultrie’s response and the two exhibits. (see all on USA v Moultrie under Legal on the left sidebar).

Needless to say, this is going to be short – no talking cows – just the text submitted in response to Carothers’ claim the subpoena was issued ex-parte reported here on SLABBED.

The application for the subpoena was not made ex parte, i.e., “in the absence of the other party,” but in the presence of the other party in this case – the Government.

In all of the cases cited by CCC, the Government is one of the parties who moved to quash the subpoena because the application for the subpoena was made by non-indigent defendants to the court ex parte, without service or notice of the motion for the subpoena being served upon the Government. These facts are clearly different from the instant case. Here all parties were given notice of the motion, the polar opposite of an ex parte proceeding. Rule 17 does not require that the recipient of the subpoena be given notice – that is what Rule 17(c)(2)’s procedures are for, and those are the very grounds for CCC’s motion to challenge the sufficiency of the items requested in the subpoena.

Thus, failure to provide notice to CCC, who is not a party to this case, is not cause to quash the subpoena.

Grab your good reading glasses and whatever you need to get comfortable before you dig into this 29-page response. I’m sure Sop will add comments later and know I will – after dinner.

3 thoughts on “No "ex" just that you aren't a parte' – Moultrie responds to Carothers motion to quash”

  1. At last! This is the first time I have seen the basis of Carothers testimony. If you ask me there are some major holes in what I read. As an example:

    In the ACCOUNTING section Carothers states unequivocally that “In the construction industry accounting is not directly billed to a clients as a cost”. Well, I would take issue with this statement and would suggest the defense call Bechtel, Fluor, Brown & Root and any other major contractors to the stand. Although not a general practice for small contractors, many companies assign accountants to reimbursable projects and bill the time directly to the client as a cost.

    I sure hope the prosecution has a lot more than what’s been posted.

  2. I feel certain the prosecution does have more. In one of Moultrie’s documents filed this week, reference is made to the USA making a room full of documents available to the defense for their discovery. Think the reference is in this motion objecting to evidence of other acts.

Comments are closed.