DECISION AND ORDER The New York City Office of Chief Medical Examiner (OCME) now moves to quash the subpoena duces tecum issued by Honorable Daniel Chun and dated January 19, 2022. The subpoena was made returnable on March 4, 2022. The instant motion was filed on March 8, 2022 (see Brunswick Hosp. Ctr., Inc. v. Hayes, 52 NY2d 333 [1981] [a motion to quash or vacate "must be made promptly, generally before the return date of the subpoena"]). However, the Court will consider the arguments and decide the instant motion on its merits. The standard to be applied to a motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum is whether the requested information is utterly irrelevant to any proper inquiry (Hyatt v. State Franchise Tax Bd., 105 AD3d 186 [2d Dept 2013]; see also Kapon v. Koch, 23 NY3D 32 [2014]). The party challenging the subpoena bears the burden of demonstrating the basis upon which the subpoena should be quashed (id.). In support of the motion, OCME argues that the materials sought are beyond the scope of the discovery mandated in Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 245.20(1)(j); the demand is overbroad and unreasonably burdensome; and the demand for the validation data is moot because the material is publicly available. As to the first argument, CPL 245.20 governs the People’s obligation to disclose certain discoverable materials; it does not restrict the defense from subpoenaing additional information or material when such “relates to the subject matter of the case and is reasonably likely to be material” (see CPL 245.30[3]). Under Article 245, the scope of discovery is broad. To the extent that the validation data is publicly available through OCME’s website, OCME will not be required to make this information available to the defendant (see CPL 245.30[3] [the court may order disclosure of material to the defendant where "the defendant is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent by other means"]). Now turning to OCME’s final contention that the demand is overbroad and unreasonably burdensome. To sustain any subpoena, there must be a showing that the evidence is relevant and material, and the subpoena is neither overbroad nor unreasonably burdensome (CPL 610.20[4]). As to the calibration-related records, OCME states, “The calibration and maintenance records are stored in the laboratory’s Laboratory Information Management System (“LIMS”). Records must be manually opened individually, captured via a screenshot, and saved as a separate PDF document for each and every weekly, monthly, and annual test for each instrument used during the timeframe of testing” (OCME’s Motion to Quash, p. 6). OCME further states that it “would have to produce thousands of screenshot pages in response to the subpoena,” which it characterizes as “an unreasonable volume of material” (id. at p. 7). The Court agrees. While the evidence sought, namely, “the calibration, quality control, and/or maintenance records for each instrument used in the testing in this case,” may be relevant, the subpoena is unreasonably burdensome. Accordingly, the OCME’s motion to quash the subpoena is granted. This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. Dated: March 24, 2022
