¶ 67). See In re Grand Jury Investigation of Possible Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1461 et seq., 706 F. Supp. 2d 11, 17 (D.D.C. 2009) (requiring showing of need for names of purchasers of explicit films). B. Exxon’s Remaining Claims Are Meritless.

Lay, 758 F.Supp. 2d 1154, 1167-69 (W.D. Wash. 2010) ("The' First Amendment protects a buyer from having the expressive content of her purcbase of books, music, and audiovisual material disclosed to the government."); In re Grand Jury Investigation of Possible Violation of 18 U.S. C. § 1461 et seq., 706 F. Supp. 2d 11, 18 (DD.C. 2009) ("United States may only obtain the records [ofpurcbases of expressive material] if it demonstrates a compelling, need for them and a sufficient nexus between the records and the grand jury's investigation"); In re Grand Jury Subpoena to Amazon.

To require proof of a defendant's knowledge of the legal status of the materials would permit the defendant to avoid prosecution by simply claiming that he had not brushed up on the law. Such a formulation of the scienter requirement is required neither by the language of 18 U.S.C. s 1461 or by the Constitution.' (Emphasis added.)

7 See Amazon.com LLC v. Lay, No. C10- 664, 2010 WL 4262266, at *10-12 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 25, 2010) (civil subpoenas sought disclosure of customers’ identities and purchases from Amazon to Washington State Department of Revenue); In re Grand Jury Investigation of Possible Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1461 et seq., 706 F. Supp. 2d 11, 12 n.1 (D.D.C. 2009) (grand jury subpoenas sought, among other items, “a copy of records that show the identity of all movies sold or distributed, including the date of each transaction, payment received, and method and date of each of each shipment, from customer purchases from the website/domain name www. [_____].

Am. Tobacco Co., 264 U.S. 298 (1924) .................................................................................................................21 Fitzgerald v. Peek, 636 F.2d 943 (5th Cir. 1981) ...................................................................................................16 Fund for La.’s Future v. La. Bd. of Ethics, No. 14-0368, 2014 WL 1514234 (E.D. La. Apr. 16, 2014) .....................................................14 Galloway v. State of La., 817 F.2d 1154 (5th Cir. 1987) .................................................................................................25 Gobeille v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 136 S. Ct. 936 (2016) ...............................................................................................................24 Google v. Hood, 822 F.3d 212 (5th Cir. 2016) ...................................................................................................13 In re Grand Jury Investigation of Possible Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1461 et seq., 706 F. Supp. 2d 11 (D.D.C. 2009) ...........................................................................................20 In re Grand Jury of S. Dist. of Ala., 508 F. Supp. 1210 (S.D. Ala. 1980).........................................................................................22 Gruber Hurst Johansen & Hail, LLP v. Hackard & Holt, No. 3:07-CV-1410-G, 2008 WL 137970 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 15, 2008) .......................................14 Guidry v. U.S. Tobacco Co., 188 F.3d 619 (5th Cir. 1999) ...............................................................................................7, 11 Gulf Coast Int’l v. The Research Corp. of the Univ. of Haw., 490 S.W.3d 577 (Tex. App. Ct. 2016) .......................................................................................6 Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006) .................................................................................................................20 Ill. ex rel. Madigan v. Telemark

n 664 [18 USCS § 664] (relating to embezzlement from pension and welfare funds), sections 891-894 [18 USCS §§ 891 through 894] (relating to extortionate credit transactions), section 1028 [18 USCS § 1028] (relating to fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents), section 1029 [18 USCS § 1029] (relating to fraud and related activity in connection with access devices), section 1084 [18 USCS § 1084] (relating to the transmission of gambling information), section 1341 [18 USCS § 1341] (relating to mail fraud), section 1343 [18 USCS § 1343] (relating to wire fraud), section 1344 [18 USCS § 1344] (relating to financial institution fraud), section 1425 [18 USCS § 1425] (relating to the procurement of citizenship or nationalization unlawfully), section 1426 [18 USCS § 1426] (relating to the reproduction of naturalization or citizenship papers), section 1427 [18 USCS § 1427] (relating to the sale of naturalization or citizenship papers), sections 1461-1465 [18 USCS §§ 1461 through 1465] (relating to obscene matter), section 1503 [18 USCS § 1503] (relating to obstruction of justice), section 1510 [18 USCS § 1510] (relating to obstruction of criminal investigations), section 1511 [18 USCS § 1511] (relating to the obstruction of State or local law enforcement), section 1512 [18 USCS § 1512] (relating to tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant), section 1513 [18 USCS § 1513] (relating to retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant), section 1542 [18 USCS § 1542] (relating to false statement in application and use of passport), section 1543 [18 USCS § 1543] (relating to forgery or false use of passport), section 1544 [18 USCS § 1544] (relating to misuse of passport), section 1546 [18 USCS § 1546] (relating to fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents), sections 1581-1592 [18 USCS §§ 1581-1592] (relating to peonage, slavery, and trafficking in persons)[.], section 1951 [18 USCS § 1951] (relating to interference wit

......................... 29 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) ................................................................... 24, 25, 27, 28 Bates v. City of Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516 (1960)......................................................................... 27 Belyea v. Litton Loan Servicing, LLP, Civ. Action No. 10-10931-DJC, 2011 WL 2884964 (D. Mass. July 15, 2011) ....................... 24 Brown v. Socialist Workers ’74 Campaign Comm., 459 U.S. 87 (1982)...................................... 25 Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) ............................................................................................. 27 Chao v. Ballista, 630 F. Supp. 2d 170 (D. Mass. 2009) ............................................................... 24 Doyle v. N.Y. State Div. of Hous. and Cmty. Renewal, No. 98 CIV. 2161(JGK), 1999 WL 177441 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 1999) ................................... 28 In re Grand Jury Investigation of Possible Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1461 et seq., 706 F. Supp. 2d 11 (D.D.C. 2009)............................................................................................ 29 In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litig., 641 F.3d 470 (10th Cir 2011).................. 28 In re Search of 3817 W. West End, 321 F. Supp. 2d 953 (N.D. Ill. 2004).................................... 17 Johnson v. Wash. Times Corp., 208 F.R.D. 16 (D.D.C. 2002)..................................................... 28 Lamont v. Postmaster Gen., 381 U.S. 301 (1965) ........................................................................ 19 Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360 (1988) ..................................................................................... 28 Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463 (1985) .................................................................................... 18 NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958) ............................................ 18, 24, 27 New York v. P.J. Video, Inc., 475

(Amended Complaint, pp. 13-14). These include, but are not limited to, promoting and producing minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251 and 2252, knowingly mailing obscene matter in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1461, and knowingly using a common carrier to carry interstate images that constitute obscene motion pictures in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1462. These Case 5:08-cv-00079-RS-AK Document 298 Filed 10/08/09 Page 14 of 19 DM1\1917894.

at 789 (quoting Russell, 369 U.S. at 764). A similar issue arose in Hamling, where the defendants were charged with mailing obscene material in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1461. The indictment “charged [the defendants] only in the statutory language.”