USA v. Helton

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
United States of America,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Anthony Curtis Helton,
Defendant.
No. CR-25-00226-001-PHX-SHD
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant’s application for issuance of a subpoena duces tecum
pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(b) and (c) (lodged at Doc. 40 (the “Application”)), and
corresponding motion to file the Application ex parte and under seal (Doc. 39). For the
reasons set forth below, the Court will grant Defendant’s request to file the Application
under seal but will defer resolving whether the Application can be considered ex parte—
and whether the Application should be granted—pending further briefing.1
I. Sealing the Application and Considering It Ex Parte
Although there is no binding precedent addressing whether applications for
subpoenas under Rule 17(c) may be sought ex parte and under seal, another judge in this
District recently concluded that “proceeding in an ex parte fashion is only ‘appropriate in
those rare situations where mere disclosure of the application for a pre-trial subpoena
would: (i) divulge trial strategy, witness lists or attorney work-product; (ii) imperil the
1 This order will be available on the public docket because it does not reveal the
substance of the subpoena, the materials sought, or Defendant’s trial strategy
considerations. See United States v. Sarinana, 2025 WL 1940009, *1 (D. Ariz. 2025)
(“Sarinana I”) (publicly filing order addressing under seal and ex parte filing).
Case 2:25-cr-00226-SHD Document 41 Filed 03/02/26 Page 1 of 5

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
source or integrity of subpoenaed evidence; or (iii) undermine a fundamental privacy or
constitutional interest of the defendant.’” Sarinana I, 2025 WL 1940009, at *1 (quoting
United States v. Clason, 2007 WL 1259138, *1 (D. Ariz. 2007)).
Here, Defendant requests that the Application be considered ex parte and filed under
seal because “the information provided in [the] application necessarily contains the work
product of defense counsel and discloses defense strategy.” (Doc. 40 at 2.) Addressing an
identical justification for ex parte treatment, the court in Sarinana I expressed its
reservations but nonetheless sealed the application and considered it ex parte: “Although it
is not obvious why [the application necessarily contains work product and discloses
defense strategy]—Defendant’s explanations on this point are undeveloped and
conclusory—the Court is willing to give Defendant the benefit of the doubt.” 2025 WL
1940009, at *1 (collecting cases to support conclusion).
This Court shares those same reservations but will—at least initially—give
Defendant the benefit of the doubt and seal the Application. It is unclear, however, whether
Defendant is entitled to ex parte relief under Rule 17(c)(3), and thus whether the
Application should remain under seal. That provision was added to implement the Federal
Crime Victims’ Rights Act. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 17 advisory committee’s note to 2008
amendment (“This amendment implements the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, codified at 18
U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8)”); see also United States v. McClure, 2009 WL 937502 at *2 n.2
(E.D.Cal. 2009). It states:
After a complaint, indictment, or information is filed, a subpoena requiring
the production of personal or confidential information about a victim may be
served on a third party only by court order. Before entering the order and
unless there are exceptional circumstances, the court must require giving
notice to the victim so that the victim can move to quash or modify the
subpoena or otherwise object.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(3). Thus, if a “subpoena requires the production of personal or
confidential information about a victim, Rule 17(c)(3) now requires that the court find
‘exceptional circumstances’ before allowing the subpoena to be served without giving prior
Case 2:25-cr-00226-SHD Document 41 Filed 03/02/26 Page 2 of 5

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
notice to the victim.” McClure, 2009 WL 937502, at *2.
Defendant did not cite or address Rule 17(c)(3) in the Application. The Court will
therefore require Defendant to brief whether its requested subpoena seeks “the production
of personal or confidential information” about the victim and whether “exceptional
circumstances” exist such that the Court may resolve the Application ex parte. Defendant
may file its supplemental brief under seal and must attach its proposed subpoena as an
exhibit.2 If the Court determines that Rule 17(c)(3) applies and there are no exceptional
circumstances allowing for ex parte resolution, the Application and proposed subpoena
will be unsealed to allow the victim or the Government to “move to quash or modify the
subpoena or otherwise object.”3
II. Merits of the Application
The Supreme Court has explained that a Rule 17(c) application for a subpoena for
production before trial may be granted only if the movant shows:
(1) that the documents are evidentiary and relevant; (2) that they are not
otherwise procurable reasonably in advance of trial by exercise of due
diligence; (3) that the party cannot properly prepare for trial without such
production and inspection in advance of trial and that the failure to obtain
such inspection may tend unreasonably to delay the trial; and (4) that the
application is made in good faith and is not intended as a general ‘fishing
expedition.’
United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 699–700 (1974). Put another way, a movant must
clear three hurdles: (1) relevancy; (2) admissibility; and (3) specificity. See, e.g., Sarinana
I, 2025 WL 1940009, at *2.
The Court will defer resolving the merits of the Application until after receiving
2 Defendant states in the Application that “[a] copy of the subpoena is attached,”
(Doc. 40 at 3), but no such copy was provided.
3 Under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, the Government may have standing to object
to a Rule 17(c)(3) subpoena on behalf of a victim. See United States v. Crutchfeld, 2014
WL 2569058, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 2014).
Case 2:25-cr-00226-SHD Document 41 Filed 03/02/26 Page 3 of 5

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
supplemental briefing from Defendant and, if appropriate under Rule 17(c)(3), after the
Government or victim have had the opportunity to object to the subpoena.
III. Form of the Subpoena
In addition to briefing the issues addressed above, Defendant shall also address the
following two issues in its supplemental brief: (1) the place of compliance (i.e., the place
where responsive information must be produced) in the event the Court grants the
Application, and (2) whether all parties—rather than the Defendant alone—should have
access to any information produced. Both issues were addressed in Sarinana I, 2025 WL
1940099, at *2–3, and the latter issue was addressed in a subsequent order issued in that
case, United States v. Sarinana, 2025 WL 2062710, at *1–2 (D. Ariz. 2025) (Sarinana II).
With respect to the second issue, the court reached the same conclusion in both Sarinana I
and Sarinana II—that under the circumstances of that case, all parties should have access
to information produced pursuant to the subpoena. Defendant, however, will have the
opportunity to brief both issues in its supplemental brief, including whether the facts of this
case warrant a different result.
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to File Ex Parte and Under Seal (Doc.
39) is GRANTED IN PART.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to file Defendant’s
Application for Issuance of a Subpoena Duces Tecum (lodged at Doc. 40), under seal,
along with the Motion to File Under Seal.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no later than March 13, 2026, Defendant shall
file a supplemental brief that attaches a copy of the proposed subpoena and addresses:
(1) whether the proposed subpoena seeks the production of personal or confidential
information about the victim; (2) whether “exceptional circumstances” exist such that the
Application may be resolved ex parte; (3) the proper place for compliance with the
proposed subpoena; and (4) whether all parties should have access to any information
produced under the proposed subpoena.
Case 2:25-cr-00226-SHD Document 41 Filed 03/02/26 Page 4 of 5

- 5 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dated this 27th day of February, 2026.
Case 2:25-cr-00226-SHD Document 41 Filed 03/02/26 Page 5 of 5