EFTA00227381

State of Delaware 
Office of the Secretary of State 
PAGE 1 
I, EDWARD J. FREEL, SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE or 
DELAWARE, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THE ATTACHED IS A TRUE AND CORRECT 
COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF "JEGE, INC.", FILED 
IN THIS OFFICE ON THE SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, A.D. 2000, AT 
2:15 O'CLOCK P.M. 
A FILED COPY OF THIS CERTIFICATE HAS BEEN FORWARDED TO THE 
NEW CASTLE COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS. 
3284812 8100 
Edward f. Free!, Secretary of State 
AUTHENTICATION: 0662136 
001452017 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
DATE: 09-07-00 
P-000101 
EFTA00227481

imp-u'stuu0 Oi:b0pe 
Froe-J Epstein i Coapany, Inc 
T-150 
P.004/005 
F-135 
CERTIFICATE OF LNCORPORATION 
OF 
JEGE, INC. 
1. 
The name of the corporation to be formed upon the filing of this 
Certificate of Incorporation is JEGE, Inc. (the "Corporation").
2. 
The address of the Corporation's registered office in the State of Delaware 
is Corporation Trust, 1209 Orange Street, in the City of Wilmington, County of New 
Castle. 
The name of the Corporation's registered agent at such address is The 
Corporation Trust Company. 
3. 
The nature of the business to be conducted by the Corporation is, or the 
purposes to be promoted by the Corporation are, to engage in any lawful acts or activities 
for which corporations may be organized under the General Corporation Law of the State 
of Delaware. 
4. 
The total number of shares of stock which the Corporation shall have 
authority to issue is One Thousand Five Hundred (1,500) shares of Common Stock, all of 
which shares shall be without par value. 
S. 
The name and mailbag address of the sole incorporator of the Corporation 
are Darren Indyke, 457 Madison Avenue. Fourth Floor, New York, New York 10022. 
6. 
The Corporation is to have perpetual existence. 
7. 
In furtherance, and not in limitation, of the powers conferred by the 
General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware upon the board of directors of the 
Corporation, the board of directors of the Corporation is expressly authorized to make, 
alter or repeal the by-laws of the Corporation. 
S. 
Elections of the directors of the Corporation need not be by written ballot, 
unless the by-laws of the Corporation shall so provide. 
Meetings of the stockholders of the Corporation may be held within or without 
the State of Delaware, as the by-laws may provide The books of the Corporation may be 
kept (subject to any provision contained in the General Corporation Law of the State of 
Delaware) outside the State of Delaware at such place or places as may be designated 
from time to time by the board of directors or in the by-laws of the Corporation.
9. 
The Corporation reserves the right to amend, alter, change or repeal any 
provision contained in this Certificate of Incorporation, in the manner now or hereafter 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-000102 
EFTA00227482

erne kir wawa 
rua 
clot...sin • Nanny, lag 
IILSI lault 
1-110 
F.005/005 
F-I35 
prescribed by the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, and all rights 
conferred in this Certificate of Incorporation upon the stockholders of the Corporation are 
granted subject to such reservation. 
10. 
A director of the Corporation shall not be personally liable to the 
Corporation or its stockholders for monetary damages for breach of fiduciary duty as a 
director, except for liability (a) for any breach of the director's duty of loyalty to the 
Corporation or its stockholders, (b) for acts or omissions not in good faith or which 
involve intentional misconduct or a knowing violation of law, (c) under Section 174 of 
the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, or (d) for any transaction from 
which the director derived any improper personal benefit.
I, THE UNDERSIGNED, being the sole incorporator hereinbefore named, for 
the purpose of forming a corporation pursuant to the General Corporation Law of the 
State of Delaware, hereby certify and declare that this is my act and deed and that the 
facts stated herein are true, and have hereunto set my hand this 7th day of September, 
2000. 
Darren IC. lndyke 
Sole Incorporator 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-000103 
EFTA00227483

For,. 2553 
Rev. July 19914 
Deparmart of de Dente/ 
lateral Renews Sante 
Election by a Small Business Corporation 
(Under section 1362 of the Internal Revenue Code) 
► See Parts lI and Ill on back and the separate instructions. 
► The corporation may either send or fax this form to the IRS. See page 1 of the Instructions. 
OMB No. I545-014e 
Notes 1. This election to be an S cap.nedon Can be accepted only Nall the tests are met under Who may elect on page I at I the instructions 
signaftres 
in Pretend III am originelS (no photocopied): and the exact name and address of the corporation and other required form information me 
provided 
2. Do not Ile Form 17205 U.S. Income Tar Ream fur an S Corporation. for any tax yes before the year the election takes effect. 
3. If the COrpaetion ores hi tudstence before the effective date of this election. see Tans an S corpration may move on page 1 of the instrtcdons. 
Part I 
Election Information 
Name of corporation See Ianajons) 
JEGE 
Tnr 
arnbet sweet and room or sults no. Of a P.O. box. see iratnaztkinii 
103 Fou1k Road. Suite 70, 
City or town, state end ZIP coda 
Wiltningtnrc 
nr 1RRA1 
D Election is to be effective for tax year beginning (month. day. year) 
E 
Name end title of officer or legal representative who the IRS may call for more information 
Darren K. Indyke, Vice President 
G 
If the corporation changed its name or oddness after applying for the EIN shown In A above. check this box 
H ■ Iris election takes effect for the Int tax year the corporation exists. enter month, day, and yew of the easiest 
of the following: (1) date the corporation first had shareholders, (2) data the caporatan first had astatS. or 43) 
date the corporation began doing business 
 
lic 
Selected tax year Annual return vel be filed for tax year ending (month and day) Ill...1.1exember..3.1 
If the tax year ands on any date other than December 31. except for an automatic 52-53-week tax year endingielith reference to the month 
of December, you must complete Pan II on the ban. W the date you enter is the ending date of an autocratic 52-53-week tax year. write 
'52-53-week year' to the right of the data See Temporary Regulations section 1.441 2T(e)(3). 
Please 
Type 
or Print 
September 
7 
7000 
C State or Incorporation 
Delaware 
►• 1 / 01 
/ 01 
F Telephone number of officer 
a le elm resartative 
.1 Name and address at each starenolder: 
SharIMMiers snot's° lining • ocienankr 
property Interest n the
stock: and tad, tares In common, Joke 
terse. Ard tenant by the enemy. (A 
husbard rd wife land ear estates) we 
counted as one Sherehokler Si 
clearnnalll the manna* at shaorhOiden 
arrow 
ono to the 
waead.) 
nner in witch the 
k b 
K Swehaders' Consent Stadment. 
Under Detains of pejury. we declare test 
to the election of the above-named corporation 
S corporadon wide section 1352(a) end 
erameined this consent statement, Inducing 
acoampanying schedules and statetTentS, 
best 
knowledge 
bent 
we consent 
to be en 
that we ham 
L 
Stock owned
-
M Social serially 
nianber or employe 
identification number 
bee InsbuctIonsl 
N 
Shore-
to
taa 
WW 
arida 
Month 
and 
day) 
and a 
Number 
of shares 
Dates 
expired 
of n 
and 
It is true, correct and 
complete We understand as COnsaa Is binding and 
ow/ not be Menem arter the CorpOratkrn has made a 
mid election. (Shareholders sign and date belted 
Otw
Signature 
Date 
Jeffrey E. Epstein 
6100 Red Hook Qugrte 
Suite B-3 
- . 
..! 
1
--1-'
100 1/1/01 
12/3 
bin, 
ThUITIMS 
I 
UbV 
UV* 
I. 
2 (
• 
t1
under penalties or perjury. I declare that h ere examined this election) 
it is true. correct. a 
e.
nclw.t
e,
Signature of officer 
i t A rs
k
ing accompanying schedules and statements. and to the best of my knowledge and belief. 
WAIWORR*Slident 
For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice. see once 2 of the
*ructions. 
Cal Nn linden 
EFTA00227484

0 
0 
INCORPORATED UNDER THE INNS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
HYPERION AIR, INC. 
TOTAL AUTHORIZED ISSUE 
1.500 SHAPES PAR VALUE 50001 EACH 
COMMON STOCK 
fAC •Co(*S1I 
•001 
Ctn.. 
car.tresict 
Ili. in to Certify Ant  
Jeffrey E. Epstein 
 in die owner of 
One Hundred (100)  
 A4 / zaed aied 
mom,- adiesiaA dZeed, 
aXore, 
tea4airesaa ofe# on. 
eecZ 
1 4‘ZorAoriavv
,
idded,/feeeert)st0eidelpo4,44,aaliotelee
p 
'Oen, dead.e..edee. 14a, ..r.e.4447,4.,404 e.x.detied. 
Vitttenn, Z‘.zeaGW. Yzoyzota 
di* .440.d.xriva,. 
Dexte4L: As of July 26, 1991 
EFTA00227485

Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-000106 
EFTA00227486

United States District Court 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
TO: 
SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY 
BEFORE GRAND JURY 
FG1 05-02(WPB)-Fri./No. OLY-07 
SUBPOENA FOR: 
PERSON 
ri 
DOCUMENTS OR OBJECTISI 
X 
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear and testify before the Grand Jury of the United States District 
Court at the place, date and time specified below. 
PLACE: 
Palm Beach County Courthouse 
Juvenile Courts Building 
205 N. Dixie Highway 
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 
(Temporary location for the United States District Courthouse, West Palm Beach) 
ROOM: 
Room 4-A 
DATE AND TIME: 
August 18, 2006 
9:00am 
YOU ARE ALSO COMMANDED to bring with you the following document(s) or object(s): 
Please coordinate your 
liana of this subpoena and confirm the date and time of your appearance with 
Special Agent 
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Telephone: 
Please see additional information on reverse 
This subpoena shall remain in effect until you are granted leave to depart by the court or by an officer acting on behalf 
of the court. 
CLERK 
(BY) DEPUTY CLERK 
This subpoena is issued upon application 
of the United States of America 
DAM.
August 2, 2006 
Name, Address and Phone Number of Assistant U.S. Attorney 
o. us a tan venue, w 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401.6235 
app Ka• ,en 
none 
ase Nm41,40•736gGV-MARRA 
ESO00#Q7 
EFTA00227487

Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-000108 
EFTA00227488

United States District Court 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
TO: 
SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY 
BEFORE GRAND JURY 
FGJ 05-02(WPB)-FriJNo. OLY-08 
SUBPOENA FOR: 
PERSON 
DOCUMENTS OR OBJECTS] 
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear and testify before the Grand Jury of the United States District 
Court at the place, date and time specified below. 
PLACE: 
Palm Beach County Courthouse 
Juvenile Courts Building 
205 N. Dixie Highway 
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 
(Temporary location for the United States District Courthouse, West Palm Beach) 
ROOM: 
Room 4-A 
DATE AND TIME: 
August 18, 2006 
9:00am 
YOU ARE ALSO COMMANDED to bring with you the following document(s) or object(s): 
Please coordinate your compliance of this subpoena and confirm the date and time of your appearance with 
Special Agen 
, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Telephone: 
Please see additional infonnation on tone 
This subpoena shall remain in effect until you arc granted leave to depart by the court or by an officer acting on behalf 
of the court. 
This subpoena is issued upon application 
of the United States of America 
•If not applicabk. enter "none • 
Case Not..0 
DATE 
August 2, 2006 
ante, Address and Phone Number of Assistant U.S. Attorney 
500 So. 
Avenue, 
400 
est Palm Beach, FL 33401.6235 
P004006109 
EFTA00227489

0 
r. 
se 
t 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-000110 
EFTA00227490

This subpoena is issued upon application 
of the United States of America 
Unued States District Court 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
TO: 
SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY 
BEFORE GRAND JURY 
FGJ 05-02(WPB)-Fri./No. OLY-09 
SUBPOENA FOR:  
PERSON 
I .] DOCUMENTS OR OBJECTfS1 
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear and testi ly be fore the Grand Jury of the United States District 
Court at the place, date and time specified below. 
PLACE: 
Palm Beach County Courthouse 
Juvenile Courts Building 
205 14. Dixie Highway 
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 
(Temporary location for the United States District Courthouse, West Palm Beach) 
ROOM: 
Room 4-A 
DATE AND TIME: 
August 18, 2006 
9:00am 
YOU ARE ALSO COMMANDED to bring with you the following document(s) or object(s): 
l'leasc coordinate 
ur corn liance of this subpoena and confirm the date and time of your appearance with 
Special Agent 
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Telephone: 
Please see additional information on incrse 
This subpoena shall remain in effect until you arc granted leave to depart by the court or by an officer acting on behalf 
of the court. 
DATE: 
August 2, 2006 
Name, Address and Phone Number of Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Aust
. .
1 .et
livenue
te 
West Palm Beach, FL. 33401.6235 
•If not applii able. enter "none' 
Toles. mind A0110 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
FORM ORD-227 
P-000111 
EFTA00227491

Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-000112 
EFTA00227492

Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-000113 
EFTA00227493

Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-000114 
EFTA00227494

Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-000115 
EFTA00227495

United States District Court 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
TO: 
SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY 
BEFORE GRAND JURY 
FGJ 05-02(WPB)-Fri./No. OLY- I 0/2 
SUBPOENA FOR: 
PERSON 
DOCUMENTS OR OBJECT'S! 
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear and testify before the Grand Jury of the United States District 
Court at the place, date and time specified below. 
PLACE: 
Palm Beach County Courthouse 
Juvenile Courts Building 
205 N. Dixie Highway 
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 
(Temporary location for the United States District Courthouse, West Palm Beach) 
ROOM: 
Room 4-A 
DATE AND TIME: 
September 15, 2006 
9:00am 
YOU ARE ALSO COMMANDED to brin with ou the followin: documen s) or object(s): 
Please coordinate your compliance of this subpoena and confirm the date and time of your appearance with 
Special Agent Nesbitt Kuyrkendall, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Telephone: (561) 822-5946. 
Please see additional information on reverse 
This subpoena shall remain in effect until you are granted leave to depart by the court or by an officer acting on behalf 
of the court. 
CLERK 
)eat 
V i k
eirs
A P \ 
DATE: 
August 28, 2006 
This subpoena is issued upon application 
Itiarnc. Address and Phone Number of Assistant U.S. Attorney 
of the U 
States of merit 
500 So. Australian Avenue, Suite 
West Palm Reach. Ft. 33401-6235 
°If not applicable, enter "none.* 
To teed le hey a A 
EFTA00227496

7 
• 
• 
824 F.Supp. 330 
824 F.Supp. 330 
(Cite as: 824 F.Supp. 330) 
C 
United States District Court. 
W.D. New York. 
In the Matter of Subpoena Duces Tecum Directed to 
the Honorable Kevin M. 
DILLON, District Attorney of Eric County. 
Civ. No. 92-I3A. 
Feb. 20. 1992. 
State district attorney moved to quash subpoena 
duces tecum issued by federal grand jury seeking 
production of state grand jury records as part of 
investigation into whether police officers violated 
federal criminal civil rights statute when making 
arrests. 
The District Court, Arcara, J.. held that 
federal grand jury was entitled to transcripts and 
tapes 
of 
state 
grand 
jury 
testimony 
of 
uncooperating police officers. 
Motion to quash denied. 
West Headnotes 
[1] Grand Jury €25 
I93k25 
Grand jury is to be afforded wide latitude 
conducting its investigation. 
Page 11 
grand jury investigation after police officers refused 
to cooperate, subpoena was definite and did not call 
for 
production 
of 
unreasonable 
amount 
of 
documents, United States had strong interest in 
insuring just enforcement of its criminal laws, and 
privacy limitations on federal grand jury documents 
limited potential harm from disclosure. Fed.Rules 
Cr.Proc.Rules 
6(e), 
17, 
18 
U.S.C.A.; 
N.Y.McKinney's CPL § 190.25, subd. 4. 
[5] Grand Jury €36.3(1) 
193k36.3(1) 
[5] States €18.63 
360k 18.63 
State statutes which preclude disclosure of state 
grand jury records to general public cannot be used 
to prevent federal grand juries from obtaining 
records through subpoena. 
[6] Grand Jury €36.4(1) 
193k36.4(1) 
Custodian of records, who is proper party for 
service of federal grand jury subpoena, is person or 
entity who is in actual possession of documents at 
in 
time subpoena is issued. N.Y.McKinney's CPL § 
190.25. subd. 4. 
[2] Grand Jury €36.4(2) 
193k36.4(2) 
Federal 
grand 
jury 
subpoena 
may 
not 
be 
unreasonable or oppressive. it may not violate 
constitutional, common law or statutory privilege. 
Fed.Rules Cr.Proc.Rule 17(c). 18 U.S.C.A. 
[3] Grand Jury €36.9(2) 
193k36.9(2) 
Federal grand jury subpoenas arc presumed to be 
reasonable and party seeking to quash subpoena 
bears burden of showing that compliance would be 
unreasonable 
or 
oppressive. 
Fed.Rules 
Cr.Proc.Rule 17(c), 18 U.S.C.A. 
[4[ Grand Jury €36.4(2) 
I93k36.4(2) 
Federal grand jury was entitled to subpoena 
transcripts and tapes of state grand jury testimony of 
police officers as pan of investigation to determine 
whether officers violated federal criminal civil 
rights laws during or after arrests; 
disputed 
testimony was relevant and necessary to federal 
(7] Grand Jury €41.10 
193k41.10 
Basic purposes of New York grand jury secrecy 
laws are: to prevent accused from escaping before 
being indicted; 
to prevent 
tampering 
with 
witnesses; and to protect accused person who is not 
indicted 
from 
unwarranted 
exposure. 
N.Y.McKinney's CPL § 190.25, subd. 4. 
[8] Witnesses €184(1) 
410k184(I) 
Evidentiary 
privileges 
protect 
confidential 
communications 
between 
persons 
in 
special 
relationships from disclosure and are generally 
disfavored in that privileges impede search for 
truth. 
[9] Grand Jury €36.3(2) 
I93k36.3(2) 
When faced with claim that grand jury should be 
denied evidence because of privilege, reviewing 
court must weigh potential harm from disclosure 
against benefits of disclosure. 
2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-000117 
EFTA00227497

• 
• 
• 
824 F.Supp. 330 
Page 12 
(Cite as: 824 F.Supp. 330, •331) 
•331 John J. DeFranks, J. Michael Marion, Asst. 
Eric County Dist. Attys. (Kevin Dillon, Erie 
County Dist. Atty., of counsel), Buffalo, NY. 
Russell P. Buscaglia, Asst. U.S. Any. (Dennis C. 
Vacco, U.S. Atty., W.D.N.Y., of counsel), 
Buffalo, NY. 
DECISION AND ORDER 
ARCARA, District Judge. 
Presently before the Court is a motion to quash a 
subpoena duces tecum. pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 
17, filed by Kevin M. Dillon, District Attorney for 
Erie County, New York. 
The District Attorney's 
motion seeks an order from this Court quashing a 
federal grand jury subpoena for state grand jury 
records. 
The parties were given an opportunity to 
brief and argue their respective positions. 
After 
reviewing the submissions of the parties and hearing 
argument from counsel, the Court denies the 
District Attorney's motion to quash the subpoena. 
BACKGROUND 
A federal grand jury investigation is currently 
being conducted regarding an incident which 
occurred on March 8, 1990 in the Main Place Mall. 
Buffalo, New York, involving the arrest of Mark 
Aiken and Steven Johnson by officers of the Buffalo 
Police Department. 
Specifically, a federal grand 
jury is investigating allegations that certain officers 
of the Buffalo Police Department violated federal 
criminal civil rights laws during and after the arrest 
of Mr. Aiken and Mr. Johnson. IFNI] 
FNI. The background and focus of the federal 
grand jury investigation is set forth in greater detail 
in an in camera submission of facts surrounding 
the federal grand jury investigation submitted by 
the United States. 
The District Attorney's Office prosecuted Mr. 
Aiken and Mr. Johnson on numerous state 
misdemeanor charges arising from this incident. 
During the state trial, only two of the six or more 
officers who were either involved in or witnessed 
the 
incident 
in 
question 
actually 
testified. 
Consequently, the state trial shed little light on the 
officers' versions of the allegations that are the 
focus 
of 
the 
federal 
criminal 
civil 
rights 
investigation. 
Following the conclusion of the state trial, the 
District Attorney's Office presented the case to an 
Erie County grand jury that considered whether the 
officers' actions during and after the arrest of Mr. 
Aiken and Mr. Johnson constituted violations of 
state law. 
The United States, which was then 
conducting •332 its own investigation, delayed 
taking any action in the matter in order to prevent 
interference with the state investigation. 
The Erie 
County grand jun• declined to return criminal 
charges against any of the police officers. 
As a 
result, the state investigation into the police officers' 
conduct concluded in approximately November, 
199th 
When the District Attorney's Office concluded its 
investigation, the United States conducted an 
independent review of the matter and concluded that 
a federal grand jury investigation was warranted. 
After further investigation, evidence was presented 
to a federal grand jury in October, 1991. 
The United States claims that the federal grand jury 
investigation has reached a logjam because of the 
refusal of the police officers to cooperate with the 
Federal 
Bureau 
of 
Investigation 
(-FBI"). 
Moreover, none of the officers who arc most 
seriously implicated in the investigation submitted 
any written reports regarding the alleged incident, 
nor did most of the officers who were present and 
should have witnessed the incident. 
Thus, the 
United States argues that reviewing the transcripts 
and tapes of the state grand jury testimony of the 
police officers is the only way that it will be able to 
learn the officers' versions of what happened. 
The United States initially attempted to obtain the 
state grand jury material through informal means. 
When these efforts failed, a grand jury subpoena 
was issued to the District Attorney's Office on 
October 25, 1991 for the production of the grand 
jury transcripts or tapes of all witnesses who 
testified in this matter before the Erie County grand 
jury. 
At the request of the District Attorney's 
Office, the return date was delayed until January 8. 
1992, in an effort to facilitate the resolution of this 
matter. 
When further efforts to resolve the matter failed, 
the District Attorney filed the present motion to 
quash, raising four objections to the production of 
the state grand jury material. 
First, the District 
Attorney 
argues 
that 
compliance 
would 
be 
C 2006 ThomsonMeg. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-000118 
EFTA00227498

• 
• 
• 
824 F.Supp. 330 
(Cite as: 824 F.Supp. 330, ►332) 
unreasonable because it would force him to violate 
state law relating to grand jury secrecy. 
Second, 
he argues that the subpoena was served upon the 
wrong party. Third. the District Attorney contends 
that compliance would be unreasonable because it 
would violate policies of comity. Finally, he 
contends that the subpoenaed grand jury records are 
privileged. 
DISCUSSION 
(11(21(3) It is well-established that a federal grand 
jury is to be afforded wide latitude in conducting its 
investigation. 
See United States v. R. Enters., 
Inc.. 498 U.S. 292, 297.98, Ill S.Ct. 722, 726, 
112 L.Ed.2d 795 (1991); 
United States v. 
Calandra. 414 U.S. 338, 94 S.Ct. 613. 38 L.Ed.2d 
561 (1974). 'A grand jury investigation 'is not 
fully carried out until every available clue has been 
run down and all witnesses examined in every 
proper way to find if a crime has been committed.' 
" 
Branrburg v. Hayes. 408 U.S. 665, 701, 92 
S.Ct. 2646, 2667, 33 L.Ed.2d 626 (1972) (quoting 
United States v. Stone, 429 F.2d 138, 140 (2d 
Cir.1970)); In re Grand Jury Subpoena for the 
Prod. of Certain New York Stare Sales Tax Records, 
382 F.Supp. 1205, 1206 (W.D.N.Y.I974) (quoting 
Stone, 429 F.2d at 140). 
In accordance with its 
broad mandate to investigate possible criminal 
activity, a federal grand jury has few limitations 
placed on its subpoena powers. 
R. Enters.. 498 
U.S. at 297-98. III S.O. at 726. 'A grand jury 
'may compel the production of evidence or thc 
testimony of witnesses as it considers appropriate. 
and its operation generally is unrestrained by the 
technical procedural and evidentiary rules governing 
the conduct of criminal trials.' ' 
Id. (quoting 
Calandra, 414 U.S. at 343, 94 5.O. at 617). 
The 
only restrictions that have been placed upon the 
grand jury concern reasonableness and privileges. 
A grand jury subpoena may not be unreasonable or 
oppressive, and it may not violate a constitutional, 
common law or statutory privilege. Branzburg, 408 
U.S. at 688, 92 5.O. at 2660; 
Fed.R.Crim.R. 
17(c). 
Grand jury subpoenas are presumed to be 
reasonable and the party seeking to quash the 
subpoena bears 
the burden of showing that 
compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive. 
R. Enters., 498 U.S. at 300-02, 111 S.Ct. at 728. 
•333 In this case, the District Attorney contends 
that compliance with the subpoena would be 
unreasonable. 
In order to meet his heavy burden 
of showing that compliance with the subpoena 
Page 13 
would be unreasonable or oppressive, the District 
Attorney must prove that (I) *there is no reasonable 
possibility that the category of materials the 
Government seeks will produce information relevant 
to 
the general subject of the grand jury's 
investigation:* or (2) the subpoena is too indefinite; 
or (3) compliance would be overly burdensome. Id. 
After applying these tests to the instant case, the 
Court finds that the District Attorney is unable to 
rebut the presumption that the federal grand jury 
subpoena is reasonable. 
(41 Regarding the relevancy question, the United 
States has set forth in some detail, both in its motion 
papers and in its in camera submission, the reasons 
underlying the need for the state grand Jury records. 
The United States has been unable to obtain the 
information contained in the grand jury records 
from other sources because the police officers have 
been unwilling to cooperate with the investigation. 
Accordingly, the Court finds that the statements of 
the police officers and other witnesses who testified 
before the state grand jury arc relevant and 
necessary to the federal grand jury investigation. 
It does not appear that the District Attorney 
challenges the subpoena as being too indefinite or 
overly burdensome. 
The Court notes that the 
subpoena is discreet and calls for the production of 
specific material stemming from a particular state 
grand jury investigation. 
Thus, the subpoena is 
sufficiently definite. 
Further, the subpoena does 
not call for the production of an unreasonable 
amount of documents. 
Consequently, producing 
the requested material would require minimal effort 
on the part of the District Attorney's Office and 
therefore would not be overly burdensome. 
The District Attorney argues that compliance with 
the subpoena would be unreasonable because it 
would place him in a position where he would be 
violating state law provisions relating to grand jury 
secrecy. 
Specifically, the District Attorney argues 
that N.Y.Crim.Proc.Law § 
190.25, subd. 4, 
requires that state grand jury materials be kept 
secret and therefore prohibits him from turning over 
the subpoenaed grand jury records to the United 
States. He contends that the only way the United 
States can gain access to these materials is to file a 
motion 
in 
state 
court 
pursuant 
to 
N.Y.Crim.Proc.Law § 190.25, subd. 4. 
The 
Court finds this argument without merit. 
12 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-000119 
EFTA00227499

824 F.Supp. 330 
(Cite as: 824 F.Supp. 330, •333) 
15l Federal courts have consistently held that state 
statutes which preclude disclosure of records to the 
general public cannot be used to prevent federal 
grand juries from obtaining the records through a 
subpoena. 
The cases of In re Grand Jury 
Subpoena for New York State Income Tax Records, 
468 F.Supp. 575 (N.D.N.Y.), appeal dismissed, 
607 F.24 566 (2d Cir.1979), and In re Grand Jury 
Subpoena for the Prod. of Certain New York State 
Sales 
Tax 
Records, 
382 
F.Supp. 
1205 
(W.D.N.Y.I974), are particularly relevant to the 
case at hand. Both cases involved federal grand 
jury subpoenas issued to officials of the New York 
State Department of Taxation for the production of 
certain tax records. The petitioners moved to quash 
the subpoenas on the grounds that compliance 
would be in violation of certain secrecy provisions 
of New York State tax laws. 
These laws are very 
similar to N.Y.Crim.Proc.Law § 190.25, subd. 4. 
which the District Attorney relies on in his motion. 
The courts in these cases explicitly rejected the 
argument that compliance was unreasonable because 
it would force the state officials to violate state law 
secrecy provisions. 
The courts ruled that the 
Supremacy Clause must prevail over the state 
nondisclosure provisions. 
As the court in In re 
Grand Jury Subpoena for New York State Income 
Tax Records stated: 
The Supreme Court has several times indicated 
that, by virtue of the supremacy clause, state 
legislation must yield whenever it comes into 
conflict with an Act of Congress or the superior 
authority of the Constitution. Thus, inasmuch as 
the federal •334 grand jury is a product of the 
Fifth Amendment and its powers, as a result of its 
long history and specific Congressional attention, 
the 
conflict 
between 
state 
confidentiality 
provisions and Congressional or constitutional 
investigatory powers has resulted in enforcement 
of federal grand jury subpoenas despite state 
statutes 
which 
would 
otherwise 
prohibit 
compliance. 
In re Grand Jury Subpoena for New York State 
Income Tax, 468 F.Supp. at 577 (citations omitted). 
Courts in other Circuits, relying on the Supremacy 
Clause, have similarly rejected claims from state 
officials that compliance with 
federal subpoena 
would force them to violate state confidentiality 
laws. 
See. e.g., in re Special April 1977 Grand 
Jury. 581 F.2d 589, 593 n. 3 (7th Cir.), ten. 
denied. 439 U.S. 1046, 99 S.Ct. 721, 58 L.Ed.2d 
705 (1978); Carr v. Monroe Mfg. Co.. 431 F.2d 
384, 388 (5th Cir.1970), cert. denied. 400 U.S. 
Page 14 
1000, 91 S.Ct. 456, 27 L.Ed.2d 451 (1971); In re 
1980 United States Grand Jury Subpoena Duces 
Team 502 F.Supp. 576, 579-80 (E.D.La.1980); 
United States v. Grand Jury Investigation, 417 
F.Supp. 389, 393 (E.D.Pa.1976). 
Thus, the case 
law clearly establishes that state law provisions 
relating to grand jury secrecy do not preclude a 
federal grand jury from obtaining gate grand jury 
records pursuant to a subpoena. 
161 The District Attorney further argues that the 
grand jury subpoena was not served upon the proper 
party. 
Specifically, the District Attorney contends 
that pursuant to the state grand jury secrecy law, 
N.Y.Crim.P.Law § 190.25, subd. 4, the state court 
has the ultimate and exclusive control over the 
subpoenaed grand jury material and, therefore, is 
the actual custodian of the grand jury records. 
Thus, the District Attorney argues that the grand 
jury subpoena should have been served on the 
presiding state court judge rather than the District 
Attorney. The Court disagrees. 
A custodian of records is the person or entity who 
is in actual possession of the documents at the time 
the subpoena is issued. In re Grand Jury Impaneled 
Jan. 21, 1975, 541 F.2d 373, 377 (3d Cir.1976) 
(citations omitted). In order to testify competently 
as a records custodian, a witness must be able to 
verify the authenticity and completeness of the 
requested docurnents. 
In this case, the District Attorney does not dispute 
the fact that his office possesses the requested grand 
jury material, nor does he deny that the grand jury 
materials were generated as a result of an 
investigation 
conducted 
by 
his 
office. 
Accordingly, the District Attorney's office is the 
sole entity that can competently testify as to the 
authenticity and completeness of the requested 
material. 
The presiding state court judge does not 
possess the subpoenaed materials nor would he or 
she have any knowledge concerning the authenticity 
or completeness of the grand jury records. 
Thus. 
the Court fords that the District Attorney's Office is 
the custodian of the state grand jury records and is 
therefore the proper party to be served with the 
subpoena. 
The District Attorney also contends that compliance 
with the federal grand jury subpoena would be 
unreasonable because it would violate policies of 
comity. 
Specifically, the District Attorney 
ID 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. 
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 
P-000120 
EFTA00227500