United States v. Reis and Hockridge, N.D. Tex. No. 4:24-cr-00287-O, Doc. 197: Christabel Warzel's motion to quash trial subpoena (2025-06-08)

Summary

A motion to quash subpoena, Document 197 in United States v. Stephanie Hockridge, Criminal No. 24-CR-00287, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, filed June 8, 2025. Christabel Warzel moves to quash the subpoena issued to her to appear and testify at trial on June 9, 2025, arguing that it was not personally delivered as required by Rule 17(d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, was issued without witness fees or mileage, and afforded inadequate time to respond. The certificate of conference states that Richard Finneran, lead attorney for Stephanie Hockridge, opposes the relief requested. An affidavit of Christabel Warzel is attached as Exhibit A.

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

“United States v. Reis and Hockridge, N.D. Tex. No. 4:24-cr-00287-O, Doc. 197: Christabel Warzel's motion to quash trial subpoena (2025-06-08).” Original at storage.courtlistener.com. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/united-states-v-reis-and-hockridge-n-d-tex-no-4-24-cr-00287-o-doc-197-a5141ef6a3/, SHA-256 069679fec3c41f5d3343e5862aec6678f283a7750e049e72192f7dbeee4b3597.

Full text

Case 4:24-cr-00287-O Document 197 Filed 06/08/25 Page 1 of 6 PageID 2178

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §
§
V. § CRIMINAL NO. 24-CR-00287
§
STEPHANIE HOCKRIDGE §

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

TO THE HONORABLE DISTRICT JUDGE REED O’CONNOR:

COMES NOW Christabel Warzel, by and through undersigned counsel, and respectfully

moves this Honorable Court to quash the subpoena issued to her in the above-captioned matter. In

support thereof, she would show as follows:

BACKGROUND 1

On or about May 16, 2025, the defense issued a subpoena commanding Christabel Warzel

to appear and testify at trial on June 9, 2025, in Fort Worth, Texas. Ms. Warzel is a full-time

prosecutor employed by the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office and resides in Phoenix, Arizona.

Ms. Warzel has no ties to the Northern District of Texas and was not personally served

with the subpoena. Instead, the document was left with Debbie MacKenzie, a custodian of records

at Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, on Thursday, June 5, 2025. Ms. Mackenzie later forwarded

the subpoena to Ms. Warzel. Ms. MacKenzie was not authorized to accept legal service on Ms.

Warzel’s behalf, and the subpoena was never personally delivered to Ms. Warzel, as required by

Rule 17(d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

1
An Affidavit supporting the following facts is attached hereto and marked as Exhibits A.

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA PAGE 1
Case 4:24-cr-00287-O Document 197 Filed 06/08/25 Page 2 of 6 PageID 2179

Additionally, the subpoena was issued without tendering the requisite witness fees or

mileage reimbursement, as mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1821 and Rule 17(d). With the trial scheduled

for June 9, 2025, Ms. Warzel had one business day to prepare, arrange travel across state lines,

and comply—an unreasonable and burdensome expectation.

ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES

Rule 17(d) mandates personal delivery of a subpoena to a witness. This requirement is not

a technicality but a foundational aspect of due process and adequate notice. The Fifth Circuit has

made clear that personal service is not optional. In re Dennis, 330 F.3d 696, 704 (5th Cir. 2003)

(stating “the rule indicates that proper service requires…personal delivery of the subpoena” when

interpreting the companion Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(b)(1)). Forwarding a subpoena via

a third party, even if the witness later becomes aware of the subpoena, is insufficient to affect

proper service.

Ms. Warzel’s receipt of the subpoena through internal office channels does not fulfill the

legal requirements for service and renders the subpoena unenforceable. Additionally, Ms.

MacKenzie is not authorized to accept personal service on behalf of any Maricopa County

employees. She is only authorized to accept service on behalf of the Maricopa County Attorney’s

Office for work-related matters.

Moreover, the failure to tender witness fees and travel expenses at the time of service

constitutes an additional defect. Rule 17(d) and 28 U.S.C. § 1821 require that these payments

accompany the subpoena, particularly when the witness resides out of state. Ms. Warzel has

received neither, which alone invalidates the subpoena. Courts consistently hold that failure to

tender such fees strips a subpoena of its enforceability.

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA PAGE 2
Case 4:24-cr-00287-O Document 197 Filed 06/08/25 Page 3 of 6 PageID 2180

Compliance with the subpoena would impose a significant hardship. Ms. Warzel is a new mother,

having given birth to her first child six months ago. There is no outside childcare available, and

she and her husband coordinate their work schedules to alternate caregiving responsibilities.

Furthermore, as a full-time prosecutor for Maricopa County, Ms. Warzel's professional obligations

are already substantial. Requiring her to travel more than 1,000 miles on short notice would not

only severely disrupt her official duties but also place an unreasonable strain on her family during

a critical stage of early parenthood. This kind of undue burden cannot be reconciled with the

principles laid out by the Supreme Court in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), which

emphasized the importance of balancing necessity with burden in the context of subpoenas—

particularly where the materiality of the testimony is unclear and alternative means are available.

Finally, the time frame provided for compliance is plainly unreasonable. Courts, including

the Fifth Circuit in Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 392 F.3d 812, 818 (5th Cir. 2004),

recognize that subpoenas which afford inadequate time to respond may be quashed. Ms. Warzel

had less than a full business day to prepare and travel, rendering the subpoena practically

impossible to comply with.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Christabel Warzel respectfully requests that

the Court grant this Motion to Quash, find that the subpoena was not properly served, determine it

to be unenforceable for failure to tender required fees and mileage, recognize the undue burden it

imposes, and find that the time provided for compliance is unreasonable. Ms. Warzel prays for

such other and further relief to which she may be justly entitled.

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA PAGE 3
Case 4:24-cr-00287-O Document 197 Filed 06/08/25 Page 4 of 6 PageID 2181

Respectfully submitted,

CHRIS LEWIS + ASSOCIATES, PC
Comerica Bank Tower
1717 Main Street, Suite 4625
Dallas, Texas 75201
Telephone (214) 665.6930
Facsimile (214) 665.6940

/s/Christopher W. Lewis
Christopher W. Lewis
State Bar No. 24004765
CLewis@lewisdefense.com

Katie Bishkin
State Bar No. 24087170
KBishkin@lewisdefense.com
Attorneys for Christabel Warzel

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I certify that on the 8th day of June 2025, I conferenced with Vernon Lewis of Bryan Cave
(the law firm representing Stephanie Hockridge) concerning this motion, and he informed me that
Richard Finneran (lead attorney for Stephanie Hockridge) opposes the relief requested in this
motion.
/s/Christopher W. Lewis
Christopher W. Lewis

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on the 8th day of June 2025, I electronically filed this document with the Clerk
of Court for the Northern District of Texas, using the electronic case filing (ECF) system of the
Court, and thereby served it on counsel of record in this case.

/s/Christopher W. Lewis
Christopher W. Lewis

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA PAGE 4
Case 4:24-cr-00287-O Document 197 Filed 06/08/25 Page 5 of 6 PageID 2182
EXHIBIT A

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §
§
V. § CRIMINAL NO. 24-CR-00287
§
STEPHANIE HOCKRIDGE §

AFFIDAVIT OF CHRISTABEL WARZEL

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority personally appeared, Christabel Warzel, who

swore on oath as follows:

I, Christabel Warzel, being duly sworn, depose and state as follows:

“My name is Christabel Warzel. I am over 18 years of age, of sound mind, and I have
never been convicted of a felony or a crime of moral turpitude. I have personal
knowledge of the facts stated in this affidavit and all the facts stated herein are true and
correct.”

“I am employed as a prosecutor with the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office in Phoenix,
Arizona and currently reside in Phoenix, Arizona.”

“I was not personally served with a subpoena in the above-captioned matter.”

“I became aware of the subpoena on Thursday, June 5, 2025, when it was forwarded to me
by a colleague from my office.”

“The subpoena commands my appearance at trial in Fort Worth, Texas, on June 9, 2025.”

“Complying with the subpoena would impose a significant burden on me, requiring last-
minute travel and disruption of my professional duties and would impose a significant
financial burden on me as well.”

“I have not received any witness fees or financial consideration to assist with travel
expenses.”

Executed on June 06, 2025. eSigned by Black Knight EXP-DocVerify: 2025-06-06 21:38:10 EDT

Christabel Warzel
__________________________________
5697408:32903766:38678659

CHRISTABEL WARZEL
Case 4:24-cr-00287-O Document 197 Filed 06/08/25 Page 6 of 6 PageID 2183
EXHIBIT A

6th
SWORN and SUBSCRIBED before me, the undersigned authority, on June ______, 2025.
eSigned by Black Knight EXP-DocVerify: 2025-06-06 21:38:39 EDT

___________________________________
5697408:32903766:270662

Notary Public in and for
______________County, Arizona
Maricopa ______________

Notarial Act Performed by Audio visual communication

File and source

File: 197-christabel-warzel-s-motion-to-quash-trial-subpoena.pdf
Size: 344,286 bytes
SHA-256: 069679fec3c41f5d3343e5862aec6678f283a7750e049e72192f7dbeee4b3597
Our copy: 197-christabel-warzel-s-motion-to-quash-trial-subpoena.pdf
Original: storage.courtlistener.com