Lexplug logoLexplug

United States v. R. Enterprises, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States
498 U.S. 292 (1991)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A grand jury subpoena duces tecum is presumed reasonable and will not be quashed on grounds of irrelevance unless the party challenging the subpoena can show that there is no reasonable possibility that the materials sought will produce information relevant to the general subject of the grand jury's investigation.


Facts:

  • A federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia was investigating the interstate transportation of obscene materials.
  • Martin Rothstein was the sole owner of three New York-based companies involved in the adult materials business: Model Magazine Distributors, Inc. (Model), R. Enterprises, Inc., and MFR Court Street Books, Inc. (MFR).
  • The grand jury issued subpoenas duces tecum to all three companies seeking corporate books and records.
  • Evidence showed that Model had shipped sexually explicit videotapes into the Eastern District of Virginia.
  • There was no direct evidence that R. Enterprises or MFR had conducted any business in the Eastern District of Virginia.
  • Rothstein had stated that the three companies were 'all the same thing.'

Procedural Posture:

  • R. Enterprises, Inc. and MFR Court Street Books, Inc. received subpoenas from a federal grand jury in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
  • The companies filed motions to quash the subpoenas in the District Court, arguing they were irrelevant and oppressive.
  • The District Court denied the motions to quash.
  • After the companies refused to comply, the District Court held them in civil contempt and imposed fines, but stayed the fines pending an appeal.
  • The companies, as appellants, appealed the contempt orders to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
  • The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's decision, quashing the subpoenas issued to R. Enterprises and MFR by applying the strict standard for trial subpoenas from United States v. Nixon.
  • The United States, as petitioner, was granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the heightened standard for enforcing a trial subpoena, which requires a showing of relevancy, admissibility, and specificity as established in United States v. Nixon, also apply to a grand jury subpoena duces tecum?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice O’Connor

No. The heightened standard for trial subpoenas from United States v. Nixon does not apply to grand jury subpoenas; instead, a grand jury subpoena is presumed reasonable and will be enforced unless the recipient can show there is no reasonable possibility that the requested materials are relevant to the investigation. The grand jury's broad investigative function, which precedes any formal charge, is fundamentally different from a trial, where the issues are narrowly defined. Requiring the government to justify a grand jury subpoena with a preliminary showing of relevance, admissibility, and specificity would create procedural delays, risk compromising the secrecy of the proceedings, and fundamentally misunderstand the grand jury's mission to determine if probable cause exists in the first place. Therefore, the burden rests on the recipient to demonstrate the unreasonableness of the subpoena, not on the government to prove its relevance.


Concurring - Justice Stevens

No. While the Nixon standard is inapplicable, the majority's new relevance test is a 'truncated approach' that is insufficient on its own. The proper standard under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c) requires a district court to balance the burden of compliance against the government's interest in obtaining the documents. The moving party has the initial burden to show that compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive, for example by demonstrating significant costs, privacy intrusions, or First Amendment implications. Only after such a showing should the court inquire into relevance, and the degree of relevance required should vary with the burden imposed by the subpoena. A more burdensome subpoena should require a higher showing of relevance to be considered reasonable.



Analysis:

This decision solidifies the broad and powerful investigatory authority of the grand jury, clearly distinguishing it from the more constrained trial context. By establishing a strong presumption of reasonableness for grand jury subpoenas and placing a heavy burden on the challenging party, the Court significantly limits the ability of investigation targets to resist document requests on relevance grounds. This prevents 'minitrials' over evidence at the investigative stage and protects the secrecy and efficiency of grand jury proceedings. The ruling makes it exceptionally difficult for a party to quash a subpoena by claiming the government is on a 'fishing expedition' unless they can meet the high bar of showing 'no reasonable possibility' of relevance.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: United States v. R. Enterprises, Inc. (1991)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"