From: ' To: "Goldberg (Legal), Jeffrey" -4 Cc: r> Subject: Re: Subpoena CRIM 1031692 Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 17:05:06 +0000 Jeff, 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 > wrote: I look forward to speaking with you tomorrow (Thursday). Unless you'd prefer another number, I'll plan to call you at 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 privac