# Questions about subpoenaes... **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 23, 2006, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-subpoenaes/341195 "2006-01-23T02:44:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-subpoenaes/341195/1 "2006-01-23T02:44:03Z")
[This GD thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=354859) is about Google being subpoenaed. In the course of the debate, I realized that I actually have little factual knowledge about subpoenas. From that thread, here are some questions I have: > [@Digital Stimulus](#): > > (1) Who can issue a subpoena? > (2) What are the conditions/justifications for issuing a subpoena? > (3) Under what circumstances are subpoenas validly issued? > (4) What are the conditions for refusing (or resisting) a subpoena? > (5) What are the legal considerations for (and who decides) judging whether a subpoena is valid? > (6) What are the ramifications of refusing a subpoena? > (7) Some examples of a subpoena issued (and honored) in a case similar to Google’s case (that is, not in a case where there was no person or entity on trial). Any and all answers are appreciated. Bonus question: after looking the word up, I realized that I had been misspelling it _subpoenae_, when it shouldn’t have the _e_ on the end (I think I corrected all the mistakes for this post). While the dictionary has the plural listed as _subpoenas_, wouldn’t _subpoenae_ also be acceptable? ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-subpoenaes/341195/2 "2006-01-23T03:10:45Z")
> [@](#): > > (1) Who can issue a subpoena? > (2) What are the conditions/justifications for issuing a subpoena? > (3) Under what circumstances are subpoenas validly issued? Here is the rule that applies to the Google case: > [@](#): > > Rule 45. Subpoena > (a) Form; Issuance. > > (1) Every subpoena shall > > (A) state the name of the court from which it is issued; and > > (B) state the title of the action, the name of the court in which it is pending, and its civil action number; and > > © command each person to whom it is directed to attend and give testimony or to produce and permit inspection and copying of designated books, documents or tangible things in the possession, custody or control of that person, or to permit inspection of premises, at a time and place therein specified; and > > (D) set forth the text of subdivisions © and (d) of this rule. A command to produce evidence or to permit inspection may be joined with a command to appear at trial or hearing or at deposition, or may be issued separately. > > (2) A subpoena must issue as follows: > > (A) for attendance at a trial or hearing, in the name of the court for the district where the trial or hearing is to be held; > > (B) for attendance at a deposition, in the name of the court for the district where the deposition is to be taken, stating the method for recording the testimony; and > > © for the production and inspection, if separate from a subpoena commanding a person’s attendance, in the name of the court for the district where the production or inspection is to be made. > > (3) The clerk shall issue a subpoena, signed but otherwise in blank, to a party requesting it, who shall complete it before service. An attorney as officer of the court may also issue and sign a subpoena on behalf of > > (A) a court in which the attorney is authorized to practice; or > > (B) a court for a district in which a deposition or production is compelled by the subpoena, if the deposition or production pertains to an action pending in a court in which the attorney is authorized to practice. > (b) Service. > > (1) A subpoena may be served by any person who is not a party and is not less than 18 years of age. Service of a subpoena upon a person named therein shall be made by delivering a copy thereof to such person and, if the person’s attendance is commanded, by tendering to that person the fees for one day’s attendance and the mileage allowed by law. When the subpoena is issued on behalf of the United States or an officer or agency thereof, fees and mileage need not be tendered. Prior notice of any commanded production of documents and things or inspection of premises before trial shall be served on each party in the manner prescribed by Rule 5(b). > > (2) Subject to the provisions of clause (ii) of subparagraph ©(3)(A) of this rule, a subpoena may be served at any place within the district of the court by which it is issued, or at any place without the district that is within 100 miles of the place of the deposition, hearing, trial, production, or inspection specified in the subpoena or at any place within the state where a state statute or rule of court permits service of a subpoena issued by a state court of general jurisdiction sitting in the place of the deposition, hearing, trial, production, or inspection specified in the subpoena. When a statute of the United States provides therefor, the court upon proper application and cause shown may authorize the service of a subpoena at any other place. A subpoena directed to a witness in a foreign country who is a national or resident of the United States shall issue under the circumstances and in the manner and be served as provided in Title 28, U.S.C. § 1783. > > (3) Proof of service when necessary shall be made by filing with the clerk of the court by which the subpoena is issued a statement of the date and manner of service and of the names of the persons served, certified by the person who made the service. > © Protection of Persons Subject to Subpoenas. > > (1) A party or an attorney responsible for the issuance and service of a subpoena shall take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to that subpoena. The court on behalf of which the subpoena was issued shall enforce this duty and impose upon the party or attorney in breach of this duty an appropriate sanction, which may include, but is not limited to, lost earnings and a reasonable attorney’s fee. > > (2) (A) A person commanded to produce and permit inspection and copying of designated books, papers, documents or tangible things, or inspection of premises need not appear in person at the place of production or inspection unless commanded to appear for deposition, hearing or trial. > > (B) Subject to paragraph (d)(2) of this rule, a person commanded to produce and permit inspection and copying may, within 14 days after service of the subpoena or before the time specified for compliance if such time is less than 14 days after service, serve upon the party or attorney designated in the subpoena written objection to inspection or copying of any or all of the designated materials or of the premises. If objection is made, the party serving the subpoena shall not be entitled to inspect and copy the materials or inspect the premises except pursuant to an order of the court by which the subpoena was issued. If objection has been made, the party serving the subpoena may, upon notice to the person commanded to produce, move at any time for an order to compel the production. Such an order to compel production shall protect any person who is not a party or an officer of a party from significant expense resulting from the inspection and copying commanded. > > (3) (A) On timely motion, the court by which a subpoena was issued shall quash or modify the subpoena if it > > (i) fails to allow reasonable time for compliance; > > (ii) requires a person who is not a party or an officer of a party to travel to a place more than 100 miles from the place where that person resides, is employed or regularly transacts business in person, except that, subject to the provisions of clause ©(3)(B)(iii) of this rule, such a person may in order to attend trial be commanded to travel from any such place within the state in which the trial is held, or > > (iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter and no exception or waiver applies, or > > (iv) subjects a person to undue burden. > > (B) If a subpoena > > (i) requires disclosure of a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information, or > > (ii) requires disclosure of an unretained expert’s opinion or information not describing specific events or occurrences in dispute and resulting from the expert’s study made not at the request of any party, or > > (iii) requires a person who is not a party or an officer of a party to incur substantial expense to travel more than 100 miles to attend trial, the court may, to protect a person subject to or affected by the subpoena, quash or modify the subpoena or, if the party in whose behalf the subpoena is issued shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met without undue hardship and assures that the person to whom the subpoena is addressed will be reasonably compensated, the court may order appearance or production only upon specified conditions. > (d) Duties in Responding to Subpoena. > > (1) A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents shall produce them as they are kept in the usual course of business or shall organize and label them to correspond with the categories in the demand. > > (2) When information subject to a subpoena is withheld on a claim that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial preparation materials, the claim shall be made expressly and shall be supported by a description of the nature of the documents, communications, or things not produced that is sufficient to enable the demanding party to contest the claim. > (e) Contempt. > > Failure by any person without adequate excuse to obey a subpoena served upon that person may be deemed a contempt of the court from which the subpoena issued. An adequate cause for failure to obey exists when a subpoena purports to require a non-party to attend or produce at a place not within the limits provided by clause (ii) of subparagraph ©(3)(A). [http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule45.htm](http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule45.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-subpoenaes/341195/3 "2006-01-23T03:19:04Z")
> [@](#): > > (4) What are the conditions for refusing (or resisting) a subpoena? > [@](#): > > (3) (A) On timely motion, the court by which a subpoena was issued shall quash or modify the subpoena if it > > (i) fails to allow reasonable time for compliance; > > (ii) requires a person who is not a party or an officer of a party to travel to a place more than 100 miles from the place where that person resides, is employed or regularly transacts business in person, except that, subject to the provisions of clause ©(3)(B)(iii) of this rule, such a person may in order to attend trial be commanded to travel from any such place within the state in which the trial is held, or > > (iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter and no exception or waiver applies, or > > (iv) subjects a person to undue burden. > > (B) If a subpoena > > (i) requires disclosure of a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information, or > > (ii) requires disclosure of an unretained expert’s opinion or information not describing specific events or occurrences in dispute and resulting from the expert’s study made not at the request of any party, or > > (iii) requires a person who is not a party or an officer of a party to incur substantial expense to travel more than 100 miles to attend trial, the court may, to protect a person subject to or affected by the subpoena, quash or modify the subpoena or, if the party in whose behalf the subpoena is issued shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met without undue hardship and assures that the person to whom the subpoena is addressed will be reasonably compensated, the court may order appearance or production only upon specified conditions. BTW, [here](http://news.com.com/2300-1028_3-6028780-1.html) is a link to the actual subpoena. Google’s response begins on page five of the document. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-subpoenaes/341195/4 "2006-01-23T03:26:23Z")
> [@](#): > > (5) What are the legal considerations for (and who decides) judging whether a subpoena is valid? It is pretty rare for a subpoena to be found to be "invalid. " They are sometimes quashed because for the reasons described above. > [@](#): > > (6) What are the ramifications of refusing a subpoena? > [@](#): > > (e) Contempt. > > Failure by any person without adequate excuse to obey a subpoena served upon that person may be deemed a contempt of the court from which the subpoena issued. An adequate cause for failure to obey exists when a subpoena purports to require a non-party to attend or produce at a place not within the limits provided by clause (ii) of subparagraph ©(3)(A). ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-subpoenaes/341195/5 "2006-01-23T03:51:15Z")
> [@](#): > > (7) Some examples of a subpoena issued (and honored) in a case similar to Google’s case (that is, not in a case where there was no person or entity on trial). I’m not sure what you mean by this. The United States is “on trial” in the Google case. If you mean subpoenas issued (and enforced) against a stranger to the litigation (a non-party). That’s all pre-trial subpoenas are good for. Rule 30 governs depositions, which are initiated by a notice of deposition. [http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule30.htm](http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule30.htm) Rule 34 governs document requests between parties. Here is a case where a testimonial subpoena was enforced against a non-party over an undue burden objection. [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=dc&navby=case&no=947231a](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=dc&navby=case&no=947231a) ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-subpoenaes/341195/6 "2006-01-23T04:05:11Z")
One serious problem with Google’s proprietary/trade-secret objection is that such objections alone seldom justify denial of the requested documents. Google’s objection is that the information needs to be kept secret from its competitors. That can be accomplished by a protective order. The order could specify, for example, that only the Government and its expert witnesses can review the information and that the information can only be used for the purposes of this case. _See, e.g,_ Manual for Complext Litigation (Fourth ed. 2004) at 62. [http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/MCL40001.pdf/$file/MCL40001.pdf](http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/MCL40001.pdf/%24file/MCL40001.pdf) (pdf). Similarly, claims of undue burden can be met by an order requiring the party seeking the information to pay for the costs of production. \*Id. \* at 70. ---
**Author:** ![Cunctator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/43a26b/32.png) [@Cunctator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cunctator)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-subpoenaes/341195/7 "2006-01-23T04:16:19Z")
> [@Digital Stimulus](#): > > Bonus question: after looking the word up, I realized that I had been misspelling it _subpoenae_, when it shouldn’t have the _e_ on the end (I think I corrected all the mistakes for this post). While the dictionary has the plural listed as _subpoenas_, wouldn’t _subpoenae_ also be acceptable? No. The English word subpoena is derived from two Latin words: \*sub \* - preposition, meaning _under_ \*poena \* - noun, in the ablative case, meaning _penalty_ The idea is that the person receiving the subpoena is required to attend court, under penalty of some punishment for non-attendence. It would not make any sense to try to pluralise it by using the nominative plural form poenae. If anything, the plural (under punishment **s** ) would be sub poenis. English has run the two words together into one and then simply added an s to form the plural. I found this quote on the website of the Supreme Court of NSW: > [@](#): > > I will close with a short Latin lesson. “Subpoena” is an English word and its plural is “subpoenas.” As a plural, “subpoenae” is not Latin, English or any other language, not even (for Googlers) Klingon or Elmer Fudd. Before 1972 a subpoena to attend was called Subpoena Ad Test, which was short for ad testificandum, meaning “to give evidence,” and a subpoena to produce documents was called Subpoena Duces Tecum, which means “bring with you.” This may help you when reading old law reports, but there is no need to use the old names any more. [Source](http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/Supreme_Court/ll_sc.nsf/pages/SCO_bryson250204) ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-subpoenaes/341195/8 "2006-01-23T04:29:37Z")
Some more documents in the case. [http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/060119-161802](http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/060119-161802) ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-subpoenaes/341195/9 "2006-01-23T14:00:50Z")
In the U.S., **Cuncator** , the terms subpoena ad testificandum and subpoena duces tecum are still in use, occasionally. There are instances (such as when you subpoena a government agency, at least according to some courts) where a subpoena duces tecum is valid but a subpoena ad testificandum is unenforceable without the permission of the agency, so the distinction is occasionally important. –Cliffy ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-subpoenaes/341195/10 "2006-01-23T14:41:26Z")
Thanks, **Gfactor**. If I understand this correctly, effectively anyone can be subpoenaed for anything. I say “effectively” just to acknowledge that there _are_ restrictions – that I think can be summed up under two headings: _undue burden_ (e.g., travel expenses or distance) and _confidentiality_ (e.g., trade secrets). What I’m most interested in was the most poorly worded question above (#7). So, let me try again…my apologies if, after I ramble a bit, it still isn’t clear. In essence, what I was trying to get at is the justification for issuing a subpoenae. I fully appreciate the need for information when there is a criminal trial, but the Google case isn’t that; in fact, they have no relation to the actual court case whatsoever outside of being a third party (a company that happens to gather/have data that might be useful). But that still doesn’t really get at what I’m asking either; the same could be said of any witness. I suppose it’s more about the nature of the original case itself – it seems odd (and wrong, I might add) to issue a subpoenae to support passage of a law. In other words, if the government, in their priveleged position of being the only entity which can pass law, does not have the pertinent information to justify said law, it is an indication that _it is a bad law_ (or perhaps just premature). Akin to providing citations in a GD thread; the person making the argument does the legwork. As there are legal differences between “the government” and a person as legal entities in a court case (not being a lawyer, I’m not sure what they are, but isn’t there a restriction, for instance, on the ability to sue the government?), I’d expect there to be differences in the ability to gather information also. I hope that was a little more comprhensible; to put this back in GQ territory, my question(s) would be – is the only requirement for issuance of a subpoenae (as it relates to this context) the fact that the information will be used in a court case? Despite the fact that the outcome of the court case does not actually affect an aggrieved party (that is, I think it would be a fair to put it, that it equates the government with a person, as the aggrieved party in the original case is the government)? Are there other examples of subpoenas being used in support of the passage of a law? ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-subpoenaes/341195/11 "2006-01-23T14:46:44Z")
I don’t know Latin, but I do note that _subpoenae_ is sometimes used, rightly or wrongly. [http://www.un.org/icty/blaskic/trialc1/order-e/70228spm.htm](http://www.un.org/icty/blaskic/trialc1/order-e/70228spm.htm) (UN) [http://www.ftc.gov/os/adjpro/d9313/040420respnoticeresubpoenae.pdf](http://www.ftc.gov/os/adjpro/d9313/040420respnoticeresubpoenae.pdf) (pdf) (attorney practicing before the FTC) [http://www.lawsociety.com.au/uploads/filelibrary/1099005938640\_0.38297488760261194.pdf](http://www.lawsociety.com.au/uploads/filelibrary/1099005938640_0.38297488760261194.pdf) (Director of Legal services, NSW police) [http://www.mcg.edu/Services/Legal/respond.htm](http://www.mcg.edu/Services/Legal/respond.htm) (Legal affairs department, Medical College of Georgia) [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=tx&vol=app/5590301&invol=1](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=tx&vol=app/5590301&invol=1) (Texas Court of Criminal Appeals) [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/nycodes/c63/a17.html](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/nycodes/c63/a17.html) (New York statute) OTOH Rule 45© (quoted above) uses “_subpoenas_.” ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-subpoenaes/341195/12 "2006-01-23T15:17:02Z")
> [@Digital Stimulus](#): > > it seems odd (and wrong, I might add) to issue a subpoenae to support passage of a law. Congress does it all the time. But I get your meaning. > [@](#): > > In other words, if the government, in their priveleged position of being the only entity which can pass law, does not have the pertinent information to justify said law, it is an indication that _it is a bad law_ (or perhaps just premature). Akin to providing citations in a GD thread; the person making the argument does the legwork. As there are legal differences between “the government” and a person as legal entities in a court case (not being a lawyer, I’m not sure what they are, but isn’t there a restriction, for instance, on the ability to sue the government?), I’d expect there to be differences in the ability to gather information also. **Cliffy** identifies one of the key differences: Sometimes it’s harder to subpoena the government. In this particular case, as [this pdf of the government’s brief says](http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/pdf/Google_motiontocompel.pdf), the Supreme Court ruled in 2004 that “on this record, the Government has not shown that the less restrictive alternatives proposed by respondents should be disregarded. Those alternatives, indeed, may be more effective than the provisions of COPA.” [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/ashcroft2004.html](http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/ashcroft2004.html) The government has taken this as an invitation to prove that current filtering methods still permit kids to see some porn. That’s their position. > [@](#): > > I hope that was a little more comprhensible; to put this back in GQ territory, my question(s) would be – is the only requirement for issuance of a subpoenae (as it relates to this context) the fact that the information will be used in a court case? General rule on discovery: > [@](#): > > (1) In General. Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. All discovery is subject to the limitations imposed by Rule 26(b)(2)(i), (ii), and (iii). [http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title28a/28a\_4\_5\_.html](http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title28a/28a_4_5_.html) The evidence does not even need to be admissible at trial. The only requirement is that it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. > [@](#): > > Despite the fact that the outcome of the court case does not actually affect an aggrieved party (that is, I think it would be a fair to put it, that it equates the government with a person, as the aggrieved party in the original case is the government)? The aggreived party in the original case is the ACLU and other parties who didn’t want to be subject to the law. The government is the petitioner on appeal, but the ACLU was the plaintiff in the trial court. > [@](#): > > Are there other examples of subpoenas being used in support of the passage of a law? I’m sure there are, but none come to mind at the moment. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_T](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Gary\_T](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_T)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-subpoenaes/341195/13 "2006-01-23T17:02:20Z")
> [@Gfactor](#): > > I don’t know Latin, but I do note that _subpoenae_ is sometimes used, rightly or wrongly. I know enough Latin to know that it’s used wrongly. In Latin, _sub poena_\* is a prepositional phrase. The phrase is adverbial in function. There is no such thing as a plural for **the phrase as a whole.** In English, the phrase has evolved into a single word, used as a noun. This noun has a plural, which is a standard English “add S” plural. This English noun does not reflect a Latin noun and there is no Latin plural. Obviously, some folks have confused the final “a” of what was originally a Latin ablative case singular with the final “a” used in some Latin words in the nominative case singular, erroneously supposed it was a Latin word, and taken it upon themselves to give it a Latin nominative plural ending. They goofed. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-subpoenaes/341195/14 "2006-01-23T17:52:36Z")
> [@Gfactor](#): > > The evidence does not even need to be admissible at trial. The only requirement is that it appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. OK. So then there is no (legal) basis for the objection found in the [MecuryNews editorial](http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/13669370.htm)? To wit (quoted in the GD thread): > [@](#): > > The request is not an appropriate use of subpoena power. The government wants Google’s data not as evidence in a case, but rather to conduct an experiment which it hopes will show that Internet porn filters are ineffective. In short, the government wants Google to help it make its case, using the company as a research arm. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-subpoenaes/341195/15 "2006-01-23T17:55:43Z")
Oh, and thank you to the grammar/Latin mavens for clearing up the use of the word _subpoena_. I didn’t want you to think your replies went unnoticed or unappreciated… ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-subpoenaes/341195/16 "2006-01-23T18:44:33Z")
> [@Digital Stimulus](#): > > OK. So then there is no (legal) basis for the objection Not in those terms. Courts tend to do some cost-benefit analysis when they rule on undue burden objections. But the idea of discovery is exactly that–for parties to get information so that they can build their cases. There is no general rule against requesting raw data for analysis.