Document: 498 U.S. 292 111 S.Ct. 722 112 L.Ed.2d 795 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.R. ENTERPRISES, INC., et al. No. 89-1436. Argued Oct. 29, 1990. Decided Jan. 22, 1991. Syllabus Pursuant to an investigation into allegations of interstate transportation obscene materials, a federal grand jury sitting in the Eastern District Virginia issued subpoenas duces tecum Model Magazine Distributors, Inc. (Model), and respondents R. Enterprises, Inc., MFR Court Street Books, (MFR), all which were based New York wholly owned by same person. The sought variety corporate books records and, Model's case, copies certain videotapes that it had shipped retailers District. denied companies' motions quash when companies refused comply with subpoenas, found each them contempt. Appeals, inter alia, quashed respondents, ruling did not satisfy relevancy prong test set out United States v. Nixon, 418 683, 699-700, 94 3090, 3103-3104, 41 1039—which requires Government establish relevancy, admissibility, specificity order enforce subpoena trial context—and therefore failed meet requirement any document subpoenaed under Federal Rule Criminal Procedure 17(c) be admissible as evidence at trial. court consider respondents' contention enforcement would likely infringe their First Amendment rights. Held: 1. Appeals apply proper standard evaluating respondents. Pp. 297-303. (a) Nixon does context proceedings. unique role makes its much different from criminal Thus, this has held may compel production or testimony witnesses considers appropriate, operation generally is unrestrained technical procedural evidentiary rules governing conduct trials. § multifactor invite impermissible delays detours while courts evaluate admissibility documents particular subpoena. Additionally, requiring explain too detail reasons underlying threatens compromise indispensable secrecy Broad disclosure also affords targets far more information about jury's workings than Rules appear contemplate. 297-299. (b) investigatory powers are nevertheless subject limit imposed 17(c), provides "the on motion made promptly modify if compliance unreasonable oppressive" (emphasis added). Since through normal channels presumed reasonable, burden showing unreasonableness, above language indicates, must recipient who seeks avoid compliance, erred extent placed initial Government. Moreover, where, here, challenged grounds, unless district determines there no reasonable possibility category materials will produce relevant general investigation. challenge being indefinite claim overly burdensome, these aspects subpoenas. 299-301. (c) Because seems unlikely challenging party know matter able make necessary unreasonable, justified reveal investigation's before challenger carry persuasion. However, question need resolved since doubt knew 301-302. (d) Application principles demonstrates correctly quash. Based undisputed facts three person, do business area, sexually explicit Virginia, could have concluded was investigation, notwithstanding self-serving denial connection Virginia. 302-303. 2. This expresses view on, leaves resolve, issue whether, related activities, required demonstrate they particularly P. 303. 884 F.2d 772 (CA4 1989), reversed part remanded. O'CONNOR, J., delivered opinion for unanimous respect Parts I II, III-A IV, REHNQUIST, C.J., WHITE, SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, JJ., joined, Part III-B, joined. STEVENS, filed concurring judgment, MARSHALL BLACKMUN, post, p. ---. William C. Bryson, Washington, D.C., petitioner. Herald Fahringer, City, Justice O'CONNOR Court.* 1 case decide what standards 2 * 1986, been investigating materials. In early 1988, series (MFR). distributor oriented paperback books, magazines, videotapes. distributes adult MFR, sells videotapes, York. All Martin Rothstein. 193 moved arguing called irrelevant 3 Court, after extensive hearings, As Model, sufficiently specific constitute prior restraint. App. Pet. Cert. 57a-58a. "sufficient further jury." Id., 60a. relied large statement attributed Rothstein "all thing, I'm president three." Ibid. explained denying MFR's "inclined agree" majority jurisdictions," require "threshold showing" enforced. 63a. Even assuming preliminary relevance required, determined such showing. It sufficient "related entities," least one "certainly ship material Commonwealth Virginia." "fairly subpoenas" "ought complied with." 65a. Notwithstanding findings, contempt fined $500 per day, but stayed imposition fine pending appeal. 64a. 4 Fourth Circuit upheld remanded re Grand Jury 87-3 Subpoena Duces Tecum, (1989). Of Enterprises MFR. doing so, applied 1039 (1974). recognized dealt subpoena, rule "equally applicable" context. F.2d, 776, n. Accordingly, clear hurdles established context—relevancy, specificity—in 776. standards, finding record either company ever into, otherwise conducted in, specifically criticized drawing inference that, because businesses undoubtedly might some link between 777. then noted "any concerning Mr. Rothstein's alleged activities outside his ownership distribute allegedly most inadmissible grounds occur," "to requirements [sic ] [Federal] [of Procedure] trial." Ibid., citing supra, 700. whether implicated Amendment. 5 We granted certiorari determine 496 924, 110 2616, 638 (1990). now reverse. II 6 occupies our justice system. body charged responsibility determining crime committed. Unlike whose jurisdiction predicated controversy, "can investigate merely suspicion law violated, even just wants assurance not." Morton Salt Co., 338 632, 642-643, 70 357, 363-364, L.Ed. 401 (1950). function inquire possibly bear until identified offense satisfied itself none occurred. consequence function, paints broad brush. "A 'is fully carried every available clue run down examined way find committed.' " Branzburg Hayes, 408 665, 701, 92 2646, 2667, 33 626 (1972), quoting Stone, 429 138, 140 (CA2 1970). 7 A thus prospective trial, where defendant charged. "[T]he identity offender, precise nature offense, one, normally developed conclusion labors, beginning." Blair States, 250 273, 282, 39 468, 471, 63 979 (1919). short, cannot justify issuance presenting probable cause very purpose requesting ascertain exists. See Hale Henkel, 201 43, 65, 26 370, 375, 50 652 (1906). 8 emphasized numerous occasions many restrictions especially true restrictions. adversary hearing merits, increase likelihood accurate determinations guilt innocence necessarily advance mission jury, task ex parte prosecute defendant. Costello 350 359, 76 406, 100 397 (1956), declined against hearsay Strict observance "would result interminable delay add nothing fair 364, S.Ct., 409. Calandra, 414 338, 613, 38 561 (1974), we exclusionary Permitting invoke "delay disrupt proceedings" hearings peripheral matters, id., 349, 621, effectively transform proceedings trials 349-350, 620-621. teaching Court's decisions clear: "may trials," 343, 617. 9 guiding principle renders suspect Appeals' holding announced anticipation equally testannounced expressly stated should free delays. "Any saddle minitrials showings assuredly impede frustrate public's interest expeditious administration laws." Dionisio, 410 1, 17, 93 764, 773, 35 67 (1973). Accord, U.S., 350, 621. application ignores strict requirements. Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(e). Requiring proceedings." Johnson, 319 503, 513, 1233, 1238, 87 1546 (1943). internal III 10 unlimited. Branzburg, 688, 2660; 346, 4, 619, 4. juries licensed engage arbitrary fishing expeditions, nor select malice intent harass. focus inquiry governs "[t]he oppressive." 11 self-explanatory. observed, "what depends context." Jersey T.L.O., 469 325, 337, 105 733, 740, 83 720 (1985). defined reasonably request both 700, 3103. But, above, context, decision routinely One simply during prosecution offense. 12 To imposes reasonableness limitation however, define it. recognize whom faces difficult situation. rule, announce publicly subjects investigations. 299. desires conception Government's seeking requested information. Indeed, often he she primary target witness. Absent minimal information, exceedingly persuade "compliance unreasonable." pair commentators summarized it, party's "unenviable seek served [him her] serve investigative legitimately pursuing." S. Beale & W. Law Practice 6:28 (1986). 13 Our fashion appropriate reasonableness, gives due weight position recipients impair strong governmental interests affording wide latitude, avoiding preserving level secrecy. begin reiterating presumes, absent contrary, acts within legitimate scope authority. Mechanik, 475 66, 75, 106 938, 944, 89 (1986) (O'CONNOR, judgment) ("The proceeding accorded presumption regularity, dispelled only upon particularized proof irregularities process"). Hamling 87, 139, 23, 2887, 2918, 590 (1974); 512-513, 1237-1238. Consequently, unreasonableness compliance. indicated permits "on motion" "if unreasonable" Government, committed error. Drawing articulated conclude Respondents burdensome. (CA4), pp. A-333, A-494. accordingly we. B 14 unlikely, course, how valid claim, unreasonable. After all, "cannot put whole life show investigated," Marston's, Strand, 114 Ariz. 260, 270, 560 P.2d 778, 788 (1977) (Gordon, specially dissenting part). resolve present pursuant issued. cases confident craft procedures balance maintaining secrecy, flexibility, For example, ensure form discovery, camera, so prospect success discloses party. IV 15 Applying companies—Model, MFR—are three, Respondents' blanket suffice render invalid. accept faith assertions those acts. Rather, entitled 363-364. 16 Both contended relating pass issue. express leave Appeals. 17 judgment insofar consistent opinion. 18 ordered. 19 BLACKMUN join, judgment. 20 authorizes hand, obtaining other.1 burdensome somewhat higher degree nonexistent burden.2 Against history attempted term "reasonable" abstract, looking side balance. ante, 300, 301.3 believe truncated approach neither provide adequate guidance place meaningful constraint overzealous prosecutor, comments. 21 establishing oppressive rests, accords regularity attaches proceedings, notes, see 300-301, lies asserting affirmative proposition," see, e.g., Mashpee Tribe Seabury Corp., 592 575, 589 (CA1), cert. denied, 444 866, 62 90 (1979). 22 moving demonstrating objection various ways. Depending volume location mere cost terms time, money, effort responding dragnet hurdle. Similarly, witness showed intrude significantly privacy interests, call trade secrets other confidential required. Or, movant implications. 23 And, parallel pretrial civil sound discretion judge, vary producing information.4 almost always prevail, produced. stress, read suggest deferential formulated govern intrusive request. 301 we"). 24 agree "unreasonable Although situations, directly applicable join opinion, am accord send back possible implications considered court. character take account entire including corporations affiliates past several years, 772, 774-775 1989). SCALIA joins III-B See, Subpoena: 829 1291, 1298 1987); Served Doe, 781 238, (CA2) (en banc), sub nom. Roe 1108, 1515, 914 (1986); Matters, 751 13, (CA1 1984); Special April 1977 Jury, 581 589, 595 (CA7), Scott 439 1046, 99 721, 58 705 (1978). Cf. 76-77, 379-380, (1906) (applying similar balancing "reasonableness" Amendment); Impaneled January 21, 1975, 541 373, 382-383 (CA3 1976) (balancing "public's ensuring effective state-created "reports privilege" deciding subpoena). Subpoena, 1296-1301 heightened scrutiny concerns); (requiring "with particularity" timing posed "such potential harm" defendants right counsel); Proceedings, 707 F.Supp. 1207, 1219 (D.Haw.1989) (quashing government proffer fraud permeating works celebrity artists great magnitude requests"); Proceedings Witness Bardier, 486 1203, 1214 (D.Nev.1980) demand "so onerous proportion end sought"); Investigation, 459 1335, 1343 (ED Pa.1978) (refusing "[court] say documentation instance excessive relative investigation"). Circuit, like without regard Respondents, affidavits support quash, framed arguments broader virtually records. A-343, ¶ 18; A-497 A-498, (hereinafter App.). argued violate rights Amendments. A-342 A-349, &Par; 19-31; A-497, A-500 A-503, 7, 14-20. recognizes, 9, relevance. A-345, 22; A-502, 18. Northrop Corp. McDonnell Douglas 243 U.S.App.D.C. 19, 31, 395, 407 (1984) factor considering oppressiveness, arise enough overcome burdensomeness] [the State Department raises] here") (citation omitted); Multi-Piece Rim Products Liability Litigation, 209 416, 424-425, 653 671, 679-680 (1981) ("relevance discovery requests" weighed "oppressiveness" "in compelled"); Balistrieri, 606 216, 221 (CA7 1979) court's Balistrieri's requests light breadth relation rather narrow ground illegal surveillance [his action] based" ), 446 917, 1850, 64 271 (1980); Marshall Westinghouse Electric 576 588, (CA5 1978) (plaintiff range "must relevance"); Litton Industries, Chesapeake Ohio 129 F.R.D. 528, 530 Wis.1990) (" 'If sought, outweigh harm cause' ") Lloyd Cessna Aircraft 430 25, Tenn.1976) "special need" deposition short notice afforded deposed party).

Category: 0