Opinion ID: 506204
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Westinghouse Factors

Text: 27 Appellant next contends that, even if summary enforcement of the subpoena could have been granted, as we now hold, the district court erred in failing to consider all of the factors required to determine whether enforcement was appropriate. 28 Before granting enforcement of the present administrative subpoena, the district court was required to find that: 1) the Department of the Interior had the statutory authority to audit the Territorial Court; 2) the subpoena sought relevant information; and 3) the subpoena was not unduly burdensome. United States v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 788 F.2d 164, 166 (3d Cir.1986). Additionally, the subpoena must not be issued for an improper purpose. Id. at 166-67. 29 The issuing agency has the preliminary burden of showing that a subpoena satisfies the Westinghouse requirements. This burden was met by the affidavit accompanying the Department of the Interior's motion for summary enforcement. 30 Once the agency makes such a showing, as it did here, the burden shifts to the party opposing enforcement to rebut the agency's showing. The Territorial Court has failed to point to any record evidence offered to rebut the preliminary showing. 31 We agree, however, that the Territorial Court did assert, contrary to the district court's statement, a challenge to the breadth and burdensomeness of the subpoena and to the good faith of the issuing agency. The defense was raised by the Territorial Court in its written response to the agency's enforcement motion. But this does not end the matter. The Territorial Court could not rest on its response once the agency made out its prima facie case for enforcement by way of affidavit. The Territorial Court was then required to make an appropriate showing in rebuttal. This it did not do. Thus, despite the district court's erroneous statement, we are satisfied that the Territorial Court did not create a factual issue with regard to breadth, burdensomeness or good faith that required the court to rule thereon. Accordingly, the agency's compliance with such factors can be inferred. 32 Additionally, the Territorial Court asserts that the district court erred in denying its request for discovery. We interpret this contention as suggesting that such action prevented it from rebutting the Department of the Interior's prima facie Westinghouse showing. The facts relating to the allegedly onerous and burdensome nature of the subpoena would be within the control of the Territorial Court rather than the Department of the Interior.