D.Mont.: Def’s SDT to Instagram for material potentially related to suppression motion granted

Defendant sought a subpoena from Instagram to see who was involved in reporting CyberTips to NCMEC. The question of admissibility relates to a potential suppression motion, not trial. Subpoena granted. United States v. Weber, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 229264 (D.Mont. Nov. 30, 2021):

Mr. Weber’s proposed subpoena seeks two categories of information from Instagram. (Doc. 36-1 at 3.) This includes: (1) the identity of any employees at Instagram who viewed the contents of files uploaded along with five CyberTips submitted by it to the NCMEC; or, alternatively (2) “if no employee viewed the files, a description of the process by which” Instagram “viewed” the files before reporting them to the NCMEC. (Id.) Such information is relevant, admissible, and specific.

The Court has no problem concluding that the evidence is relevant. Indeed, the Ninth Circuit’s opinion Wilson renders the information sought directly relevant to any potential Fourth Amendment suppression analysis. 13 F.4th at 967-75. In other words, Mr. Weber cannot determine whether evidence the United States will use against him at trial was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment unless he knows the circumstances surrounding how such information came into its possession in the first place. Id. In short, the information is highly relevant to any determination regarding whether a suppression motion is appropriate in this case.

As to admissibility—the Court does not find that the information sought is immediately excludable under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Such evidentiary hurdles would surely inform any suppression analysis, United States v. Brewer, 947 F.2d 404, 408 (9th Cir. 1991), but the Court finds no basis for prematurely excluding the requested information before it has even come into Mr. Weber’s possession. It should also be noted the United States does not challenge the information’s admissibility at this stage. This factor is met.

As a final matter, the Court finds that the information sought is sufficiently specific. …

This entry was posted in Admissibility of evidence, Subpoenas / Nat'l Security Letters. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.