USA v. Jones et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF KANSAS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
NEWTON JONES (01),
WILLIAM CREEDEN (02),
KATERYNA JONES (03),
LAWRENCE MCMANAMON (05),
Defendants.
Case No. 24-20070-DDC
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Four defendants in this action have filed an Unopposed Expedited Motion for Issuance of
a Rule 17(c) Subpoena Duces Tecum (“Motion”). Doc. 252. These four defendants—Newton
Jones, William Creeden, Kateryna Jones, and Lawrence McManamon—ask the court to issue a
subpoena duces tecum to Legacy Professionals, LLP (“Legacy”). They attach the proposed
subpoena to their motion (Doc. 252-1) and request an expedited ruling because trial is set on
May 4, 2026.
Legacy and the United States reportedly have advised they will not object to the proposed
subpoena, which identifies 11 categories of documents. Defendants seek these documents “to
fill in the gaps” for specific years within the charging period for which documents were not
supplied in prior productions. Doc. 252 at 3. For each category, defendants have submitted
exhibits exemplifying or describing the documents sought. Docs. 252-2, 252-3, and 226-7
through 226-17.
The court again finds itself in familiar territory. These defendants requested a prior
unopposed Rule 17(c) subpoena, to which neither the adverse party (the United States) nor the
Case 2:24-cr-20070-DDC Document 260 Filed 03/18/26 Page 1 of 2

2
subpoena’s recipient objected. See Doc. 140. In keeping with the federal courts’ “interest in
preserving the proper procedure prescribed by the Rules of Criminal Procedure, irrespective of
the desires of the parties,” United States v. Wittig, 250 F.R.D. 548, 551 (D. Kan. 2008)
(quotation cleaned up), the court adheres to the same Nixon standard pronounced in its prior Rule
17(c) orders, see United States v. Jones, 24-20070-DDC, 2025 WL 2145024, at *2 (D. Kan. July
29, 2025). But it declines to borrow trouble where none exists given the unopposed nature of the
motion. Doc. 140 at 3.
Balancing a variety of competing interests, the court concludes the Nixon requirements
are met for the 11 categories of documents identified in the proposed subpoena. The court thus
grants defendants’ motion. Doc. 252. As with the court’s prior unopposed Rule 17(c) order, the
defendants have agreed to provide any documents produced by Legacy to the United States, so
the court again adopts this condition as part of its Order here.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT defendants’ Unopposed
Expedited Motion for Issuance of a Rule 17(c) Subpoena Duces Tecum (Doc. 252) is granted.
The court directs the Clerk to issue a subpoena duces tecum substantially like the one proposed
by defendants’ motion.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants must provide the United States with
access to all documents secured from Legacy under this subpoena.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 18th day of March, 2026, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ Daniel D. Crabtree
Daniel D. Crabtree
United States District Judge
Case 2:24-cr-20070-DDC Document 260 Filed 03/18/26 Page 2 of 2