In Re Grand Jury Investigation

33 F. Supp. 367, 1940 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3692
CourtDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina
DecidedApril 12, 1940
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 33 F. Supp. 367 (In Re Grand Jury Investigation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Grand Jury Investigation, 33 F. Supp. 367, 1940 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3692 (M.D.N.C. 1940).

Opinion

HAYES, District Judge.

The subpoenas duces tecum 1 served upon each movant are identical and were served on the custodian of corporate records at its home office and at numerous branch offices. The motions are to quash and vacate all of the subpoenas for that:

(a) The subpoena constitutes an unlawful and unreasonable search and seizure in violation to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution;

(b) The subpoena is an improper and unwarranted investigation of and excursion into the private affairs of the corporation in question and does not constitute a demand for the production of relevant evidence but is an attempt to discover evidence by search and seizure of a great mass of documents and papers;

(c) The subpoena is too general, broad and indefinite in its terms and too extensive in time and compliance therewith would be oppressive, and to require it would be an abuse of the power of the court;

(d) It is unreasonable and invalid because;.

(1) It calls for information and not specific documents,

(2) It would compel party in question to go through innumerable files and papers to determine which relate to the subjects enumerated involving oppression and unreasonable burden;

(3) There is no showing of materiality or pertinence of the papers to any issue *369 which the Federal Grand Jury has jurisdiction to consider.

(4) Asks for documents without regard to whether they relate to interstate or intrastate actions;

(e) Enforcement of the subpoenas without any showing of materiality of the documents and without any showing of jurisdiction constitutes an unlawful search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

(f) And deprives the corporation of its property without due process in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Affidavits in support of, and in opposition to, the motions have been filed from which it appears that in the District Court of the United States for the District of Maryland during the year 1926 all of the petitioners except Cudahy Packing Co. entered pleas of nolo contendere to an information charging them and others total-ling 39 with a violation of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq.) and in which fines aggregating $90,500 were imposed; that continuous complaints of monopolistic and restraint of trade and commerce practices in the fertilizer industry were made by farmers, farmer’s cooperatives, fertilizer agents, dealers and mixers to the Attorney General and to the United States Attorney; that agents of the F. B. I. had conducted extensive investigations into the records of the movants except Cudahy Packing. Co. during 1939 and that from the preliminary investigation it was found that the price of various grades of fertilizers had been maintained with such uniformity as to corroborate the complaints and to make a thorough investigation necessary; identical and uniform prices are charged by widely separated groups connected with the industry; the annual sales of fertilizer and fertilizer products aggregate $200,000,000 and the quantity used approximates eight million tons a year; that the Attorney General, after an examination of the data supplied by those engaged in the industry, directed a grand jury’ investigation to determine whether a conspiracy or combination in restraint of trade or commerce exists and agreeably to the statutes a special grand jury was convoked at Wins ton Salem, N. G, on February 12, 1940, and is still engaged in the investigation; this investigation is conducted in good faith to determine whether any persons or corporations engaged in the fertilizer industry are violating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and amendments thereto.

With the exception of Cudahy Packing Co., all of the petitioners permitted agents of the F. B. I. to investigate their records and in some instances agents were engaged as long as eight months; they copied many records.

Many factors enter into the fixing of prices for fertilizer. The industry is a heavy chemical industry — the largest having to do with heavy chemicals — embracing allied and subordinate industries as potash, nitrogen, phosphate, rock, sulphur, sulphuric acid, super phosphate, nitrate of soda, sulphate of ammonia/ nitrogen solutions, cynamide, fish scrap, leather scrap, tankage, organic ammoniates, fertilizer bags, etc.

The documents called for embrace an enormous volume, will require much time and expense to assort and assemble and will be very burdensome. With the exception of Cudahy Packing Co., Swift and Co. and Armour and Co. of Delaware and Illinois, the fertilizer industry and allied industries constitute the business of the petitioners and the production of all of the documents would virtually divest these companies of their files. The fertilizer and kindred industries constitute but a small part of Cudahy, Swift and Armour.

A subpoena identical with those here under consideration was approved by Judge Hulbert in the Southern District of New York, In re Investigation by Atty. Gen., (In re Cudahy Packing Co.), 27 F.Supp. 997, but an appeal was taken from his ruling. The Government challenged the procedural right to an appeal from an interlocutory order. The Circuit Court held the matter was appealable, In re Cudahy Packing Co., 2 Cir., 104 F.2d 658, but the United States Supreme Court in Cobbledick et al. v. United States, 60 S.Ct. 540, 84 L.Ed.-, decided February 26, 1940, held such orders interlocutory and not appealable. In the meantime the grand jury had' been dismissed and by consent Judge Hulbert’s order was vacated.

A corporation must submit its books and papers to duly constituted authority when demand is suitably made. When the demand is by lawful process which confines its requirements within limits which reason imposes in the circumstances of the case, a corporation has no right to refuse. Wilson v. United States, 221 U.S. 361, *370 31 S.Ct. 538, 55 L.Ed. 771, Ann.Cas.1912D, 558.

A subpoena duces tecum is a “process” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, whose validity is tested by its reasonableness in the circumstances of the case. Essgee Co. v. United States, 262 U.S. 151, 43 S.Ct. 514, 67 L.Ed. 917; Brown v. United States, 276 U.S. 134, 48 S.Ct. 288, 72 L.Ed. 500. In a grand jury investigation of practices by the fertilizer industry to ascertain if there exist combinations in restraint of interstate commerce, to fix prices of fertilizer, and to stifle competition, what books, letters, telegrams &nd documents of a fertilizer company would be reasonably essential to such an inquiry? The grand jury needs to determine the basis upon which prices are fixed: the cost of the material composing the product, the manufacture and mixing, the transportation and sale. The exchange of data with other companies similarly engaged and communications relating thereto are material on an inquiry of price fixing.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re United Shoe MacHinery Corporation
73 F. Supp. 207 (D. Massachusetts, 1947)
In re Eastman Kodak Co.
7 F.R.D. 760 (W.D. New York, 1947)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
33 F. Supp. 367, 1940 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3692, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-grand-jury-investigation-ncmd-1940.