Smith, J.
The Women’s Resource Center of Greater Lawrence (WRC) appeals from a judgment finding it in civil contempt for failing to respond to a summons for the production of documents pursuant to Mass.R.Crim.P. 17(a)(2), 378 Mass. 885 (1979).1 It claims that the issuance of the subpoena was error on both procedural and substantive grounds.
[748] We recite the facts from the record before us.2 On December 17, 2001, a complaint issued from the Lawrence District Court charging the defendant with a single count of indecent assault and battery on a child under the age of fourteen, in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 13B. The offense allegedly occurred on or about October 15, 2001. The complaint was later amended to allege that the crime occurred on divers dates from January, 1998, to October 31, 2001. In order to prepare his defense, the defendant sought certain records relating to the complainant’s treatment or counseling from the WRC dating from “January 23, 2002 to [the] present.”3 In support of his request, the defendant filed an affidavit specifying why the requested documents were relevant. On February 6, 2003, after a hearing, a District Court judge allowed the defendant’s motion, and on February 11, 2003, a summons was issued, ordering WRC to produce the records in court by March 18, 2003.4 On that date, the case was continued, and the summons was reissued with a new compliance date of May 7, 2003. When WRC failed to produce the records, a hearing was scheduled for September 5, 2003.5
On September 5, 2003, a hearing was held at which defense counsel, an assistant prosecutor, and counsel for WRC attended. WRC argued in a memorandum that the defendant’s request for documents was nothing more than a “fishing expedition” and [749] that the defendant had not met the relevancy standard which must be satisfied before any documents may be summonsed from nonparties.
The motion judge rejected WRC’s request to intervene, but invited WRC to file a motion to quash the summons or to assert any applicable privilege. WRC explicitly declined to take either of the judge’s two suggestions and continued to refuse to produce the documents. In response, the judge issued a written memorandum and order finding WRC in civil contempt. The execution of the order was stayed, and the stay has been in effect at all times material to this case. WRC appealed the order of contempt.6
On appeal, WRC argues that the judge erred in allowing the defendant’s motion to compel production of records because the defendant had not satisfied the applicable relevancy requirements. WRC makes the additional claim that it ought not be burdened with the requirement of presenting its objections in a motion to quash, but rather that it be permitted to present its position in a “memorandum in opposition.” WRC also suggests that it should have been given notice and an opportunity to be heard before the summons was issued. We first address the relevancy claim.
The procedure that must be followed in order to obtain documents or records from a nonparty is set forth in rule 17 and that procedure has been recently explicated in the decisional law.7 See Commonwealth v. Lampron, 441 Mass. 265, 268-271 (2004); Commonwealth v. Jansen, 444 Mass. 112, 116-117 [750] (2005); Commonwealth v. Lam, 444 Mass. 224, 230-231 (2005). Specifically, the role permits a party in a criminal case to file a motion to compel production of documents from a third party prior to trial where the moving party believes the materials may contain relevant information that has evidentiary value to the defense. Commonwealth v. Lampron, supra at 268. Regardless of the type of documents sought, the Supreme Judicial Court has stated that the motion must be supported by an affidavit that shows that “the documentary evidence sought has a ‘rational tendency to prove [or disprove] an issue in the case.’ ” Id. at 269-270, quoting from Commonwealth v. Fayerweather, 406 Mass. 78, 83 (1989). Commonwealth v. Lam, supra at 230.8 See Commonwealth v. Pelosi, 441 Mass. 257, 262-263 (2004). The affidavit may contain hearsay, provided that the source of the hearsay is identified, the hearsay is reliable, and the affidavit establishes with specificity the relevance of the requested documents. Commonwealth v. Lampron, supra at 271. This threshold determination of relevancy and the requirements of role 17 “must be satisfied before any documents of any kind may be summonsed from nonparties.” Commonwealth v. Lampron, supra at 268. See Commonwealth v. Lam, supra at 230-231.
Here, counsel’s affidavit contained statements that an assessment report from the Lawrence Bridge Home, as well as [751] discovery provided by the Department of Social Services, indicated that the victim (1) had been “diagnosed with adjustment disorder, mixed anxiety and depression”; (2) had experienced “visual and auditory hallucinations”; (3) had, in the opinion of a named clinician, “ ‘changed her story’ with regard[] to the alleged misconduct of the defendant”; and (4) had “identified her sister . . . as a victim of sexual misconduct by the defendant,” but that in an interview by a named individual, the sister stated that “the defendant ‘never touched her.’ ”
The affidavit identifies the hearsay sources, the facts contained in the affidavit “are in the personal knowledge of counsel’s sources,” and the hearsay is sufficiently rehable. See Commonwealth v. Lampron, 441 Mass. at 271. In addition, the affidavit identifies with specificity the relevance of the requested documents. In these circumstances, the defendant was entitled to the initial order for production of records from WRC, and the judge acted within his discretion in issuing the order.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Smith, J.
The Women’s Resource Center of Greater Lawrence (WRC) appeals from a judgment finding it in civil contempt for failing to respond to a summons for the production of documents pursuant to Mass.R.Crim.P. 17(a)(2), 378 Mass. 885 (1979).1 It claims that the issuance of the subpoena was error on both procedural and substantive grounds.
[748] We recite the facts from the record before us.2 On December 17, 2001, a complaint issued from the Lawrence District Court charging the defendant with a single count of indecent assault and battery on a child under the age of fourteen, in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 13B. The offense allegedly occurred on or about October 15, 2001. The complaint was later amended to allege that the crime occurred on divers dates from January, 1998, to October 31, 2001. In order to prepare his defense, the defendant sought certain records relating to the complainant’s treatment or counseling from the WRC dating from “January 23, 2002 to [the] present.”3 In support of his request, the defendant filed an affidavit specifying why the requested documents were relevant. On February 6, 2003, after a hearing, a District Court judge allowed the defendant’s motion, and on February 11, 2003, a summons was issued, ordering WRC to produce the records in court by March 18, 2003.4 On that date, the case was continued, and the summons was reissued with a new compliance date of May 7, 2003. When WRC failed to produce the records, a hearing was scheduled for September 5, 2003.5
On September 5, 2003, a hearing was held at which defense counsel, an assistant prosecutor, and counsel for WRC attended. WRC argued in a memorandum that the defendant’s request for documents was nothing more than a “fishing expedition” and [749] that the defendant had not met the relevancy standard which must be satisfied before any documents may be summonsed from nonparties.
The motion judge rejected WRC’s request to intervene, but invited WRC to file a motion to quash the summons or to assert any applicable privilege. WRC explicitly declined to take either of the judge’s two suggestions and continued to refuse to produce the documents. In response, the judge issued a written memorandum and order finding WRC in civil contempt. The execution of the order was stayed, and the stay has been in effect at all times material to this case. WRC appealed the order of contempt.6
On appeal, WRC argues that the judge erred in allowing the defendant’s motion to compel production of records because the defendant had not satisfied the applicable relevancy requirements. WRC makes the additional claim that it ought not be burdened with the requirement of presenting its objections in a motion to quash, but rather that it be permitted to present its position in a “memorandum in opposition.” WRC also suggests that it should have been given notice and an opportunity to be heard before the summons was issued. We first address the relevancy claim.
The procedure that must be followed in order to obtain documents or records from a nonparty is set forth in rule 17 and that procedure has been recently explicated in the decisional law.7 See Commonwealth v. Lampron, 441 Mass. 265, 268-271 (2004); Commonwealth v. Jansen, 444 Mass. 112, 116-117 [750] (2005); Commonwealth v. Lam, 444 Mass. 224, 230-231 (2005). Specifically, the role permits a party in a criminal case to file a motion to compel production of documents from a third party prior to trial where the moving party believes the materials may contain relevant information that has evidentiary value to the defense. Commonwealth v. Lampron, supra at 268. Regardless of the type of documents sought, the Supreme Judicial Court has stated that the motion must be supported by an affidavit that shows that “the documentary evidence sought has a ‘rational tendency to prove [or disprove] an issue in the case.’ ” Id. at 269-270, quoting from Commonwealth v. Fayerweather, 406 Mass. 78, 83 (1989). Commonwealth v. Lam, supra at 230.8 See Commonwealth v. Pelosi, 441 Mass. 257, 262-263 (2004). The affidavit may contain hearsay, provided that the source of the hearsay is identified, the hearsay is reliable, and the affidavit establishes with specificity the relevance of the requested documents. Commonwealth v. Lampron, supra at 271. This threshold determination of relevancy and the requirements of role 17 “must be satisfied before any documents of any kind may be summonsed from nonparties.” Commonwealth v. Lampron, supra at 268. See Commonwealth v. Lam, supra at 230-231.
Here, counsel’s affidavit contained statements that an assessment report from the Lawrence Bridge Home, as well as [751] discovery provided by the Department of Social Services, indicated that the victim (1) had been “diagnosed with adjustment disorder, mixed anxiety and depression”; (2) had experienced “visual and auditory hallucinations”; (3) had, in the opinion of a named clinician, “ ‘changed her story’ with regard[] to the alleged misconduct of the defendant”; and (4) had “identified her sister . . . as a victim of sexual misconduct by the defendant,” but that in an interview by a named individual, the sister stated that “the defendant ‘never touched her.’ ”
The affidavit identifies the hearsay sources, the facts contained in the affidavit “are in the personal knowledge of counsel’s sources,” and the hearsay is sufficiently rehable. See Commonwealth v. Lampron, 441 Mass. at 271. In addition, the affidavit identifies with specificity the relevance of the requested documents. In these circumstances, the defendant was entitled to the initial order for production of records from WRC, and the judge acted within his discretion in issuing the order.
WRC makes a related claim that the judge improperly limited WRC to challenging the summons by filing a motion to quash or by asserting a privilege. According to WRC, it should be permitted to object by way of an “opposition memorandum,” and it should be given notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to the issuance of the summons. Neither decisional law nor rule 17 supports such a result. The plain language of rule 17 provides that “[t]he court on motion may quash or modify the summons if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive or if the summons is being used to subvert the provisions of [Mass.R.Civ.R 14, 378 Mass. 874 (1979)].” Legitimate objections brought pursuant to a motion to quash may be wide ranging and may properly include objections to the general “lawfulness of the command to produce and other issues.” Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 426 Mass. 647, 648 (1998). WRC’s challenge to the relevancy of materials readily falls within the reach of an appropriate objection set forth in a motion to quash, and the filing of such a motion is no more oppressive or burdensome than filing an “opposition memorandum.” In any event, WRC’s objection to the issuance of the summons in this case has been treated as though it was properly raised below.
[752] Similarly unavailing is WRC’s claim that it ought to have been afforded notice and an opportunity to be heard before the summons was issued. As noted above, the language of rule 17 describing the procedure by which an objection to a summons may be lodged makes clear that objections are only available after the issuance of the summons. See Commonwealth v. Fuller, 423 Mass. 216, 220 n.3 (1996); Commonwealth v. Neumyer, 432 Mass. 23, 30, 34-35 (2000) (subpoena received by third-party sufficient notice; subsequent hearing provided adequate opportunity to be heard); Commonwealth v. Lampron, 441 Mass. at 271-272; Commonwealth v. Lam, 444 Mass. at 232, n.10.
The judgment of contempt is affirmed.
So ordered.