The following excerpt is from Two Grand Jury Subpoenae Duces Tecum (Jan. 28, 1985, and Undated), In re, 769 F.2d 52 (2nd Cir. 1985):
The district court's order, however, also leaves appellant with a new problem which threatens to take away the fundamental ground for the appeal. Appellant's motion to quash is based on the alleged fact that the act of producing records in this case will compel the custodian to testify against himself. As explained below in section B, in certain circumstances a custodian of records may have a fifth amendment right to refuse to comply with a subpoena directing him, individually, to produce records when the act of producing them would constitute self-incriminating testimony. Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 96 S.Ct. 1569, 48 L.Ed.2d 39 (1976). The problem for appellant is that under the district court's limitation of the subpoenas the custodian as an individual is not required to produce anything at all, and is therefore apparently not being required to testify against himself.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.