Opinion ID: 528808
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Business Records Subpoenas

Text: 21 Our only concern with respect to the business records requested from Model, R. Enterprises, and MFR is the relevancy of those documents to the grand jury's investigation. A. Model Magazine 22 The grand jury is investigating the possibility that Model shipped obscene materials into, and distributed them within, the Eastern District of Virginia. Such conduct could be found to violate 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1465 (1982) 3 , which prohibits the transportation of obscene matters for sale or distribution. 23 We do not doubt the relevance of Model's business records to this investigation, as those records will most likely reveal whether the company's business dealings in Virginia resulted in the sale and or distribution of allegedly obscene materials in the state. Nor do we doubt the necessity of a subpoena to obtain those records, as logically they are available only from the company itself. We therefore affirm the district court's refusal to quash the subpoena requesting Model's corporate records. B. MFR and R. Enterprises 24 The government does not allege, and the record contains absolutely no evidence indicating, that either MFR or R. Enterprises has ever shipped materials into, or otherwise conducted business in, the Eastern District of Virginia. The district court found that the business records of these two companies were relevant to the investigation of Model because MFR, R. Enterprises and Model are all owned by the same individual, Martin Rothstein. The lower court apparently believed that Rothstein's ownership of the three companies, in conjunction with the evidence demonstrating that Model shipped allegedly pornographic material into the Eastern District of Virginia, gives rise to an inference that MFR and R. Enterprises also transacted business in that location. In the absence of any evidence linking MFR and R. Enterprises with the Eastern District of Virginia, however, such an inference is arbitrary at best. 25 Rule 17(c) was not intended to provide a means of discovery in addition to that provided by Fed.R.Crim.Pro. 16. See Bowman Dairy Co., supra, 341 U.S. at 221, 71 S.Ct. at 679. In reviewing motions to quash subpoenas issued under 17(c), the federal courts have acted with great care to insure that the rule is not turned into a broad discovery device, thereby undercutting the strict limitation of discovery in criminal cases. United States v. Cuthbertson, 630 F.2d 139, 146 (3d Cir.1980). The test for enforcement is whether the subpoena constitutes a good faith effort to obtain identified evidence rather than a general 'fishing expedition' that attempts to use the rule as a discovery device. Id. at 144. See also Bowman Dairy Co., supra, 341 U.S. at 220-21, 71 S.Ct. at 678-79; United States v. Layton, 90 F.R.D. 514, 526 (N.D.Ca.1981). 26 The grand jury's request for these records appears to be premised on nothing more than a hope that the documents will reveal a tie between the companies and Virginia. Mere hope, however, does not justify the enforcement of a subpoena under Rule 17(c). Cuthbertson, supra, 630 F.2d at 146. See also Gilmore v. United States, 256 F.2d 565, 568 (5th Cir.1958). The government must offer some evidence of a connection between MFR and R. Enterprises and Virginia before it can subpoena the companies' business records under 17(c). Because the government has offered no such evidence, we fail to see how the records of those companies are relevant to a grand jury investigation in the Eastern District of that state. In the absence of such evidence, enforcement of the subpoena would indeed allow the government to engage in a fishing expedition, in the hopes of turning up incriminating evidence. 27 We also note that any evidence concerning Mr. Rothstein's alleged business activities outside of Virginia, or his ownership of companies which distribute allegedly obscene materials outside of Virginia, would most likely be inadmissible on relevancy grounds at any trial that might occur. This is true even if one views the grand jury as investigating Martin Rothstein, rather than Model Magazine. It would appear, therefore, that these subpoenas fail to meet the requirements that any documents subpoenaed under Rule 17(c) must be admissible as evidence at trial. See Nixon supra, 418 U.S. at 700, 94 S.Ct. at 3103.