Opinion ID: 2639270
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Temporal scope

Text: Tesoro argues that the State's investigation, although nominally broad, actually covers only one to two years because the phenomenon the attorney general has decided to investigate has only recently occurred. As evidence of the supposedly limited scope of the inquiry, Tesoro relies on the State's explanation for its need for the investigation as a response to the Alaska Paradox, that even though Alaska has the largest oil field in North America, Alaskan consumers and businesses pay the highest retail tax-excluded gasoline prices in the country. To explain the Alaska Paradox, the State supplies two graphic comparisons of gasoline and gasoline tax prices. One graph represents figures from 1997 and one represents figures from 1998. Therefore, reasons Tesoro, the investigation is aimed solely at explaining gasoline prices from the past several years. Tesoro argues, citing Kellam Energy, Inc. v. Duncan , [51] that [c]ourts have recognized that the temporal limits of a subpoena in the antitrust context can be ascertained by reference to the time period of the claims at issue. Based on the limited scope of the investigation, Tesoro suggests that the time period of discoverable documents should be five years, beyond which the State could request documents only after a proper showing to the superior court. According to Tesoro, this two-step approach would prevent the imposition of undue burden and expense to Tesoro while permitting the attorney general to perform its duty of investigation. We decline to impose Tesoro's two-step approach; such an approach has no statutory basis and has been rejected by courts. [52] Tesoro's attempt to portray the investigation as only concerning recent gasoline pricing is wholly unconvincing. The two illustrative graphs in the State's trial brief are just thatillustrative. They do not limit or define the temporal scope of the investigation. In addition, numerous courts have held that the temporal scope of discovery in antitrust suits should not be confined to the limitations of the antitrust statutes. [53] In light of the discussion of general deference to the government in investigative subpoenas, and the representations in the record which support the court's finding, [54] the superior court did not abuse its discretion by finding that documents dating back ten years are relevant to the investigation.