Thanks. Let’s plan to speak at 1:30 PST tomorrow. I can be reached at¶
Thanks,¶
Sent from my iPhone¶
On Sep 26, 2019, at 7:09 PM, Goldberg (Legal), Jeffrey < > wrote:¶
Hi, . I can now also speak tomorrow at 2:00 PT.¶
Hi, . I can do 1:00, 1:30, or 2:30 PT. Would any of those times work for you, and if so do you have a preference?¶
Thanks. What time on Friday should we plan to speak?¶
Sent from my iPhone¶
On Sep 26, 2019, at 1:02 AM, Goldberg (Legal), Jeffrey < > wrote:¶
Hi, . I’m tied up tomorrow (Thursday) and traveling all next week, so I’ll call this Friday.¶
Thanks,¶
EFTA00079152¶
I’m following up on our conversation from last month—I think you were going to get back to us about the issues we had discussed, and I wanted to check in. Our subpoena remains outstanding.¶
Of course. How about sometime between 12:30 and 1:45 PT?¶
Thanks,¶
Thanks— can you let us know your availability for a call on Monday?¶
Sent from my iPhone¶
On Aug 22, 2019, at 1:10 PM, Goldberg (Legal), Jeffrey < > wrote:¶
Thanks, . I just left you a voice message saying your suggestion makes sense.¶
Are you free for a two-minute return call to at least confer on your availability? I’ll be at until 1:30 ET.¶
Thanks,¶
EFTA00079153¶
I should add: if you think it would be productive to review those issues before we talk, let us know if you’d like to reschedule the call.¶
Thanks,¶
Sent from my iPhone¶
On Aug 22, 2019, at 2:56 AM, Goldberg (Legal), Jeffrey¶
I look forward to speaking with you tomorrow (Thursday). Unless you’d prefer another number, I’ll plan to call you at [blank].¶
Also, as indicated I promised to provide some more information on how Amazon approaches the issues we’ve been discussing. I’m hopeful that this information will help provide a common baseline for further consideration of your request for expressive materials. I’ve attached several cases that discuss the need for a heightened showing of relevance and need before a bookstore, video provider, or library can be compelled to reveal expressive choices of its patrons. In our experience, prosecutors and government agencies typically are not permitted access to records of bookstores and libraries unless (1) a compelling need exists for the requested information, (2) a substantial nexus is demonstrated between the information sought and the subject of the criminal investigation, and (3) the government has exhausted other avenues to obtain the information in ways that do not burden First Amendment rights. See, e.g., Amazon.com LLC v. Lay, 758 F. Supp. 2d 1154 (W.D. Wash. 2010); In re Grand Jury Investigation of Possible Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1461, 706 F. Supp. 2d 11 (D.D.C. 2009); In re Grand Jury Subpoena to Amazon.com, 246 F.R.D. 570 (W.D. Wis. 2007); In re Grand Jury Subpoena to Kramerbooks & Afterwords Inc., 26 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1599 (D.D.C. 1998); Tattered Cover, Inc. v. City of Thornton, 44 P.3d 1044 (Colo. 2002) (en banc).¶
I’m obviously not privy to the details of your investigation. And, to be clear, we don’t rule out the possibility either that the subjects here do not have a protectable privacy interest or that sufficient grounds exist to compel production of the expressive materials you seek. I also want to assure you that we do not seek to interfere with your investigation in any way in expressing these concerns. Amazon routinely cooperates with law enforcement on a number of levels, and we will secure and not destroy any information we determine is responsive to your request.¶
As I discussed with , if your office ultimately decides to continue to pursue the expressive materials at issue, we might seek to enlist the assistance of the court with a motion to quash, preferably based upon a stipulated briefing schedule, to determine whether the requisite legal standards have been satisfied in this instance. But again, we don’t not ruling out the possibility that sufficient grounds exist in this instance to compel production.¶
Thanks,¶