Opinion ID: 358726
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reasonableness of the Subpoenas

Text: 12 Next appellant offers several reasons why the subpoenas should be quashed under the limitation in Rule 17(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure on unreasonable or oppressive subpoenas. The argument that compliance is oppressive is virtually frivolous, for, as previously noted, the persons subpoenaed already have complied with the requested documentary production. The Government has not complained that the compliance was deficient and the speed and ease with which the subpoenas apparently were complied belies any claim of oppressiveness. See generally Brown v. United States, 276 U.S. 134, 48 S.Ct. 288, 72 L.Ed. 500. Nor were the subpoenas oppressive because, as claimed at oral argument, the original documents turned over to the grand jury are needed for auditing purposes. First, the Government responded that it was making (and had made known its willingness to make) needed original documents available to the State. Second, despite his counsel's oral assertion here, appellant made no showing whatsoever in the court below that the absent subpoenaed documents would have a deleterious effect on the functioning of any state office. Finally, even if true, a claim of disruption caused by record production does not preclude compliance with a grand jury subpoena. See Matter of Grand Jury Impaneled January 21, 1975, 541 F.2d 373 (3d Cir. 1976). 13 The contention pressed most vigorously by appellant on this appeal is that some of the documents were available through a request under the Illinois State Records Act (Ill.Rev.Stats. (1977) ch. 116, §§ 43.4 Et seq.), so that requesting them by subpoena is unreasonable and oppressive. The Records Act provides that certain state records are public records available for inspection by the public. Id. § 43.6. Relying on Judge Weinfeld's formulation in United States v. Iozia, 13 F.R.D. 335, 338 (S.D.N.Y.1952), recently repeated by the Supreme Court in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 699, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 3103, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039, appellant argues that in order to require production prior to trial, the moving party must show    that they are not otherwise procurable reasonably in advance of trial by exercise of due diligence. It is also asserted that use of the State Records Act is particularly appropriate under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669, because that case purportedly established that the federal government has a special duty to avoid such unreasonable interference in the state's affairs. 5 14 Initially, however, it does not appear true that most of the subpoenaed documents are available under the Act, or that the remainder can be procured under reasonable terms. Even appellant admits that many of the documents, such as campaign information, would be unavailable under the Act. As to the remaining documents, the Act provides that they cannot be viewed if they are then being used by state officials (§ 43.6). Also, the Act does not permit the originals to be removed (§ 43.7) and even allows the state official discretion to permit viewing only of copies (Id.). Of course the Act provides no mechanism by which a requesting party can guarantee that there was full compliance with its request. 15 Even assuming that the Act theoretically may be sufficient in some cases, applying it to these unique circumstances would permit the Attorney General to control the release and availability of documents under the Act (§ 43.6; see ch. 14 § 4). Apart from the justifiable doubt of full compliance that the Government would have without the force of a subpoena when the purported subject of the investigation would choose what documents to release, requiring pursuit of this alternate method of procurement is not justified anyway by the rationale of Judge Weinfeld's rule in Iozia. As that rule has been applied, it is used to avoid allowing a party who may have the needed document in its own possession, or could easily obtain it from another source, to force the subpoenaed party to bear the costs of searching for the document. Placing such a burden on the subpoenaed party when another source is available is deemed unreasonable and oppressive. See, E. g., United States v. Cohen,15 F.R.D. 269 (S.D.N.Y.1953); United States v. Schine, 126 F.Supp. 464 (W.D.N.Y.1954); United States v. Duncan, 22 F.R.D. 295 (S.D.N.Y.1958); United States v. Woodner, 24 F.R.D. 33 (S.D.N.Y.1959). In fact, in extrapolating on the rule in Nixon, the Supreme Court described it as asking whether the subpoenaed materials are not available from any other source. 418 U.S. at 702, 94 S.Ct. at 3105. 16 When put in this context, the inapplicability of the rule here becomes apparent. It is not denied that the obligation to search for and produce the documents falls on the Attorney General's office whether or not a subpoena is used. The argument that the Act should have been used is therefore not the accepted argument that the subpoena places an unduly oppressive burden on the appellant but rather essentially is a claim that using a subpoena instead of the Act is not the most sensitive manner of proceeding and that it therefore is inconsistent with some penumbra of Our Federalism. While it may have been more seemly for the United States Attorney to seek to use the State Records Act before resorting to a subpoena, given the potential problems with compliance under the Act, the inapplicability of the Act to many of the documents sought, and the necessity that some sensitivities be implicated in almost any grand jury investigation (compare United States v. McGrady, 508 F.2d 13, 18 (8th Cir. 1974), certiorari denied, 420 U.S. 979, 95 S.Ct. 1408, 43 L.Ed.2d 661), we cannot say that it was an abuse of discretion not to quash the subpoenas on this ground. See United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 702, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039. It should be noted that the Third Circuit already has held that it was not an abuse of discretion to hold that the grand jury's investigative interests outweigh a similar state comity concern. Matter of Grand Jury Impaneled January 21, 1975, 541 F.2d 373, 377-378 (3d Cir. 1976). 17 Our examination of the documents submitted to the district court In camera satisfies us as to the relevancy and materiality of the information sought. 18 Orders affirmed.