Order on Government's Motion to Quash Rule 17(c) Subpoenas Duces Tecum — United States v. Cedric May

Summary

This is an Order in United States v. Cedric May, No. 25-81, Section "P" (5), in the Eastern District of Louisiana, dated the 25th day of August 2025. It denies the Government's Motion to Quash Rule 17(c) Subpoenas Duces Tecum. The Indictment charged conspiracy to commit bank robbery, bank robbery and possession of a stolen vehicle, and a Superseding Indictment filed May 30, 2025 added three counts of obstruction of justice. May sought a subpoena to the St. Tammany Parish Sheriff's Office custodian of records for jail phone recordings, including calls with Marcus Garner. The Court finds May carried the burden of relevance, admissibility and specificity, and that this is not a "fishing expedition." It orders May's counsel to give the Government a copy of all recordings received.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Cite this document

“Order on Government's Motion to Quash Rule 17(c) Subpoenas Duces Tecum — United States v. Cedric May.” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/court-filing-no-2-25-cr-00081-dkt-66-6b2a9be833/, SHA-256 67050543ce595fbb93ff079acc0bfabe62db026f06f8564908eaf01d605b9ccc.

Full text

Case 2:25-cr-00081-DJP-MBN Document 66 Filed 08/25/25 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CRIMINAL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 25-81

CEDRIC MAY SECTION: “P” (5)

ORDER

Before the Court is the Government’s Motion to Quash Rule 17(c) Subpoenas Duces

Tecum.1 Defendant Cedric May opposes the motion.2 For the following reasons, the Government’s

motion (R. Doc. 60) is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

On April 4, 2025, the Government filed the original Indictment in this matter, which

charged Mr. May with one count of conspiracy to commit bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 371, one count of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a), (d) and 2, and one count of

possession of a stolen vehicle in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2313 and 2.3 On May 30, 2025, the

Government filed a Superseding Indictment, adding three additional counts against Mr. May for

obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(1).4 The Government’s allegations with

respect to these additional charges state that on or about March 27, 2025, May 6, 2025, and May

27, 2025, the defendant, Mr. May, “did knowingly and intentionally attempt to corruptly persuade

C.B. by directing C.B. to provide a false alibi with the intent to influence the testimony of C.B. in

a criminal proceeding.”5

1
R. Doc. 60.
2
R. Doc. 64.
3
R. Doc. 26.
4
R. Doc. 49.
5
R. Doc. 49 at 4.
Case 2:25-cr-00081-DJP-MBN Document 66 Filed 08/25/25 Page 2 of 4

On July 24, 2025, Mr. May filed a Motion for Issuance of Subpoena to command the

Custodian of Records for the St. Tammany Parish Sheriff’s Office to produce the following items:

(1) all phone recordings of phone conversations between Cedric May and any other parties on June

25, 2025, and (2) all phone conversations between Cedric May and Marcus Garner at the phone

number listed on the subpoena.6 The Government now moves to quash the subpoena, arguing that

Mr. May has not met the requirements for its issuance.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c) provides that:

A subpoena may order the witness to produce any books, papers,
documents, data, or other objects the subpoena designates. The court
may direct the witness to produce the designated items in court
before trial or before they are to be offered in evidence. When the
items arrive, the court may permit the parties and their attorneys to
inspect all or part of them.

In order to require production prior to trial, the moving party must show: “(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.’”7 In short, the party seeking the subpoena

“must clear three hurdles: (1) relevancy; (2) admissibility; (3) specificity.”8

Mr. May contends the requested recordings are relevant, admissible, and requested with

adequate specificity. In his opposition memorandum, Mr. May explains that on May 9, 2025,

which was prior to the filing of the Superseding Indictment, he provided a Notice of Alibi

6
R. Doc. 57.
7
United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 699–70 (1974).
8
Id. at 700.

2
Case 2:25-cr-00081-DJP-MBN Document 66 Filed 08/25/25 Page 3 of 4

Defendant to the Government, and in response to his notice, the Government produced a few,

limited jail phone calls allegedly involving Mr. May that were recorded on May 21, 2025 and May

28, 2025. Then, based on these limited phone calls, the Government filed the Superseding

Indictment, which added the three counts of obstruction of justice against Mr. May. He contends

the Government’s case for the obstruction of justice charges is largely based on the jail phone calls

that the Government produced in discovery. Mr. May contends, however, that the jails phone calls

the Government produced did not include all conversations between Mr. May and the alleged

witness(es). Mr. May believes the jail phone calls requested in the present subpoena contain

relevant and exculpatory information and are material to his defense in this matter. In particular,

he contends the calls made on the date requested (July 25, 2025) and the calls with Mr. Marcus

Garner at the phone number provided will refute the allegations made in the Superseding

Indictment.

The Court finds Mr. May has carried his burden. In particular, he has shown a sufficient

likelihood that the requested recordings are relevant to the offenses charged in the indictment and

that the recordings may reasonably be used as admissible evidence. The Court further finds the

subpoena contains sufficient details to identify the particular materials being sought, such that this

is not a “fishing expedition” that would contravene Rule 17(c).

CONCLUSION

IT IS ORDERED that the Government’s Motion to Quash Rule 17(c) Subpoenas Duces

Tecum (R. Doc. 60) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for Mr. May shall provide to counsel for the

Government a copy of all recordings received in response to the subpoena.

3
Case 2:25-cr-00081-DJP-MBN Document 66 Filed 08/25/25 Page 4 of 4

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 25th day of August 2025.

__________________________________________
DARREL JAMES PAPILLION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

File and source

File: 66.pdf
Size: 184,277 bytes
SHA-256: 67050543ce595fbb93ff079acc0bfabe62db026f06f8564908eaf01d605b9ccc
Our copy: 66.pdf
Original: No public link identified.