MTR. OF SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM TO AM. BROADCASTING COS.

JEFFREY M. ATLAS, J. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. (ABC) moves to quash a subpoena served upon it by Steven Crea which demands the production of any and all documents, notes, memoranda, correspondence, transcripts, summaries, audiotapes, videotapes, film or computer files in ABC's custody or control, in whatever form recorded, that relate to or concern Sean Richard. The demand includes but is not limited to any materials that memorialize, relate to or concern any statements made by Sean Richard to ABC whether or not ABC News has used or intends to use such statements in a published news story. For the reasons which follow, the motion to quash is granted. Steven Crea is the lead defendant among a total of 49 defendants charged by indictment with enterprise corruption, bribery, coercion, and grand larceny, for their alleged involvement in criminal schemes related to the construction industry. The indictment alleges that Steven Crea is the leader of the so-called "Lucchese Crime Family." It also alleges the existence of the "Lucchese Construction Panel," which has been described as a group that met weekly to plan and assess the status of various criminal ventures on construction sites. It is claimed that this construction panel was made up of Crea, codefendants Dominick Trucello and Joseph Datello, and a former associate of the Lucchese Crime Family, now an informant for the People, Sean Richard. It was the People's intention that Richard would remain a confidential informant until this case was in a trial posture, and in the earliest stages of this litigation I signed protective orders to keep his identity secret. However, since the defendants' arrests, Richard has given interviews to at least two news organizations, the New York Times and ABC News. In these interviews Richard apparently discussed the allegations in the indictment, and his and others' participation in this criminal enterprise. A minuscule portion of a seven-hour videotape made by ABC with Richard was first aired on the day of the arrests in this case. Some months later ABC aired a few minutes of the interview. Crea's subpoena seeks disclosure of the unaired balance of the interview. While ABC moves to quash the subpoena on several grounds, the most significant claim is that the demanded material is the subpoenaed material is critical or necessary to the maintenance of his defense or the proof of any material issue. Indeed, the defendant has not actually defined for me any specific claim or defense which he affirmatively seeks to prove and he even concedes that he can proceed to trial without the subpoenaed material. In fact, Crea's argument really focuses on the need to impeach the credibility of Richard and seeks the unaired interview in the hope that it will reveal some things that might prove valuable during cross-examination of Richard. In that way, Crea's arguments are conjectural at best and do not provide a reason why the unaired interviews would provide proof of a specifically delineated defense or claim. (People v Gissendanner, 48 NY2d 543 [1979]; People v Magliore, 178 Misc 2d 489 [1998]; People v Soto, 162 Misc 2d 108 [1994]; People v Troiano, 127 Misc 2d 738 [1985]; People v Bova, 118 Misc 2d 14 [1983].)