In Re: Request from the United v., No. 12-1236 (1st Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on July 6, 2012.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 12-1236 IN RE: REQUEST FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM PURSUANT TO THE TREATY BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM ON MUTUAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS IN THE MATTER OF DOLOURS PRICE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner, Appellee, v. TRUSTEES OF BOSTON COLLEGE, Movant, Appellant. ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued on May 31, 2013, is amended as follows: On page 4, line 1: Replace "After a detailed review of the materials in question, we find that the district court abused its discretion in ordering the production of several of the interviews which, after an in detail reading of the same, do not contain any information relevant to the August 2011 subpoena." with "After a detailed review of the materials in question, we find that the district court abused its discretion in ordering the production of a significant number of interviews that do not contain any information relevant to the August 2011 subpoena." On page 5, line 7: Replace "BC filed a motion to quash those subpoenas." with "BC produced the Brendan Hughes materials right away because the terms of the confidentiality agreement ended with his death. BC, however, filed a motion to quash the subpoena aimed at the Dolours Price materials." On page 5, line 21: replace "BC has since handed over both the Dolours Price and Hughes materials to the commissioner." with "BC has since handed over said materials." On page 23, line 23: delete "Those interviews were provided to the court by BC after it performed an initial search of the Project's archives using search terms the government had provided." On page 25, line 20: replace "17" with "16" On page 26, line 1: replace "fifteen" with "fourteen" -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
