The current bilateral mutual legal assistance instrumentbetween the United Kingdom and the United States was signed onDecember 16, 2004, integrating the 2003 mutual legal assistanceagreement between the European Union and United States into the1994 mutual legal assistance agreement with the United Kingdom.Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement, U.S.-E.U., June 25, 2003, S.Treaty Doc. No. 109-13, at 350-73 (2006) (“UK-MLAT”). See alsoS. Treaty Doc. No. 109-13, at XXXVI (explaining in an ExecutiveSummary how the 2003 bilateral mutual legal assistance treatybetween the United States and the European Union integrates intothe 1994 mutual legal assistance treaty between the United Statesand United Kingdom).
Quite properly, this case was filed under seal. UK-MLATart. 7, Confidentiality and Limitations on Use. When therecipient of the subpoenae in question filed its motion to quashpublicly, the Court unsealed the docket in order to respond. ECFNo. 4. While the Court issues this opinion publicly as there areimportant considerations of judicial transparency here, itdiscloses nothing not already in the public record.2Project.” The subpoenae were issued by a commissioner pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 3512, the United Kingdom Mutual Legal AssistanceTreaty (“UK-MLAT”),
and a sealed Order of this Court.
Thegovernment asserts that the terms of the UK-MLAT requires theCourt to grant its order and deny any motion to quash absent aconstitutional violation or a federally recognized testimonialprivilege. Opp’n Gov’t’s Mot. Quash & Mot. Order Compel(“Gov’t’s First Opp’n”) 8, ECF. No. 7. Boston College asks theCourt to review the subpoenae under the standard set forth inFederal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c)(2), where “the court mayquash or modify the subpoena if compliance would be unreasonableor oppressive.” Mot. Trustees Boston College Quash Subpoenas(“Mot. Quash”)
ECF. No. 5. This Court is asked to determinewhat sort of discretion an Article III court has to review or
Case 1:11-mc-91078-WGY Document 32 Filed 12/16/11 Page 2 of 49