Jimenez Perez v. United States
- Willis
- 1:25-cv-03400
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Jimenez Perez v. United States, Judge Willis ordered subpoenaed documents produced within seven days or required a contempt hearing.
Eduardo H. Jimenez Perez, who sought the documents; Frederick L. Sosinsky, who was ordered to produce them or appear to explain the noncompliance; and the United States, whose opposition to Jimenez Perez’s petition was affected by the evidentiary dispute.
What happened
In Jimenez Perez v. United States, Eduardo H. Jimenez Perez, representing himself, asked the court to enforce a subpoena served on his former defense lawyer, Frederick L. Sosinsky. The requested materials concerned advice and communications about the immigration consequences of Jimenez Perez’s guilty plea.
Jimenez Perez said Sosinsky had not responded to the subpoena and that the missing documents impaired his ability to answer the government’s opposition to his pending petition. The motion sought document production, a possible contempt hearing, and other relief to preserve a complete record; it did not ask the court to decide the petition’s merits at that stage.
Judge Jennifer E. Willis ordered Sosinsky to comply with the subpoena and produce responsive documents within seven days, or appear and explain why he should not be held in contempt. The order warned that noncompliance could lead to civil contempt sanctions, including monetary penalties, and directed the clerk to close Docket Nos. 34 and 41.
The detailed version
- Jimenez Perez v. United States · No. 1:25-cv-03400
- Willis
- July 7, 2025
Background
Eduardo H. Jimenez Perez, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a motion to enforce a subpoena directed to his former defense counsel, Frederick L. Sosinsky. The subpoena was authorized on May 15, 2025, served on May 16, 2025, and required production of documents concerning communications, notes, legal memoranda, plea negotiations, and immigration advice related to Jimenez Perez’s guilty plea.
Jimenez Perez said Sosinsky had not responded, requested an extension, or moved to quash the subpoena. He argued that the missing materials were important to his ineffective-assistance claim under the Sixth Amendment and to his ability to respond to the United States’ opposition memorandum in the pending petition proceeding. He also pointed out that the government had obtained a limited order allowing access to sealed plea and sentencing materials.
Requested Relief
The motion asked the court to compel Sosinsky to comply immediately, require production within seven days or a showing why Sosinsky should not be held in contempt, consider civil contempt sanctions, and issue other orders protecting Jimenez Perez’s ability to respond to the government. The motion stated that it was intended to develop the evidentiary record and preserve procedural fairness, not to obtain a ruling on the underlying petition.
Ruling
The signed order required Sosinsky to comply with the subpoena and produce all responsive documents within seven days. Alternatively, it required him to appear before the court and show cause—explain why—he should not be held in contempt under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(g). The order warned that failure to comply could result in civil contempt sanctions, including monetary penalties and other appropriate relief. It also directed the clerk to close Docket Nos. 34 and 41.
The text provided does not state an express ruling using the words “granted” or “denied” for the motion. The signed order addresses subpoena enforcement and does not decide the merits of Jimenez Perez’s underlying petition or ineffective-assistance claim.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.