Summary of Opinion: Application of General Motors Corporation to Quash Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum (213 F. Supp. 255, S.D.N.Y. 1961)

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion addresses a motion by General Motors Corporation to quash a Grand Jury subpoena duces tecum issued April 18, 1961 and served on the applicant. The motion asserted that compelled compliance would constitute an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment and would violate due process under the Fifth Amendment. The Government indicated during argument and in submitted papers that it was prepared to modify the terms of the subpoena substantially, including eliminating certain demands and interpreting language to apply only to a limited number of specific documents. The Court considered these representations and the lack of precise limitations in the present subpoena.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether compelled compliance with the subpoena duces tecum would constitute an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Whether compelled compliance with the subpoena duces tecum would violate due process under the Fifth Amendment.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant (General Motors Corporation)

Asserted that compliance would constitute an unreasonable search and seizure contrary to the Fourth Amendment.
Asserted that compliance would violate due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.
Raised objections that certain demands in the subpoena were unduly burdensome and that some language in the subpoena was vague or confusing (for example, use of terms like "prepared," "supporting financial reports," and ambiguous scope terms such as "motor vehicles").

Government

Indicated it was prepared to modify the subpoena substantially to eliminate various burdensome demands and to "interpret" other language so it would apply only to a limited number of specific documents.
The precise limitations the Government would accept, however, were not made sufficiently clear in the papers or argument before the Court.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court observed that the Government was willing to make substantial modifications to the subpoena but found that the Government had not specified the precise limitations it proposed. Because the terms of the subpoena as served were ambiguous and in some respects unduly broad or confusing, the Court concluded that the subpoena should be rewritten to identify with reasonable precision the documents the Government now seeks. The opinion lists specific examples of clarifications the Government should include when redrafting the subpoena (e.g., specifying whether requests are for items "submitted" as opposed to "prepared"; stating whether exhibits annexed to financial statements are required; defining the term "motor vehicles" to indicate exclusions; identifying particular divisions if only certain divisional reports are desired; specifying when copies should be acceptable in lieu of originals). The Court explained that only after such clarifications are made will clear-cut issues emerge as to whether the applicant retains valid objections to production, and noted the possibility that the applicant might raise no further objections or that agreement could be reached concerning production once the burden is more precisely defined.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Court granted the motion to quash the subpoena as initially issued, but did so without prejudice to the service of a new subpoena that specifies with reasonable precision the items the Government now desires.

Implications: The direct consequence is that the originally served subpoena is quashed and unenforceable in its present form. The Government remains free to serve a new, more precisely drafted subpoena addressing the clarifications identified by the Court. The opinion contains no discussion of broader legal precedent or the establishment of a new rule; its effect is limited to requiring precision in the Government's document demands before compelling production.

Show full summary ...

Application of GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION to Quash Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Issued April 18, 1961.

213 F.Supp. 255 (S.D.N.Y. 1961) Application of GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION to Quash Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Issued April 18, 1961. United States District Court, S.D. New York Aug. 1, 1961

Cravath, Swaine & Moore, New York City, for General Motors Corp. Aloysius F. Power, Detroit, Mich., Allen F. Maulsby, John W. Barnum, New York City, of counsel.

John J. Galgay, Sanford M. Litvack, George D. Reycraft, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Antitrust Division.

FREDERICK van PELT BRYAN, District Judge.

This is a motion to quash a Grand Jury subpoena duces tecum addressed to and served upon the applicant upon the grounds that 'compelled compliance therewith would constitute an unreasonable search and seizure contrary to the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and a violation of due process of law contrary to the Fifth Amendment.'

It is apparent from the argument of the motion and from the papers submitted that the Government now is prepared markedly to modify the terms of the subpoena which was served.

The modifications which the Government indicates it will accept are very substantial and seem to satisfy a number of the objections raised by the applicant. The Government states that it is ready to eliminate various demands which the applicant claims are unduly burdensome and to 'interpret' other language in the subpoena so as to apply only to a limited number of specific documents. However, the precise limitations which the Government seeks to place on the demands made in the subpoena are by no means clear.

The subpoena should be rewritten so as to identify with reasonable precision the papers and documents which the government now desires so that the applicant may have an opportunity to determine whether it has any objections to the remaining demands and whether it still claims that its constitutional rights will be violated by compliance.

It should be noted that in redrawing the subpoena the clarifications to be made by the Government should include, among other things, the following:

If the Government wants appropriation requests 'submitted' to the Financial Policy Committee of the Board of Directors by specific General Motors divisions, there is no reason why it should not say so in so many words. The use of such words as 'prepared' leads only to confusion. If it requires annual income and profit and loss statements and balance sheets 'with the exhibits annexed thereto', it should so specify, instead of using such confusing terms as 'supporting financial reports' or 'including supporting documents'. The same comments apply to financial forecasts and budget reports. If it requires such reports on an annual basis this should be specified. If 'price studies' with exhibits attached submitted to a specific price review group or committee, are required, the subpoena should so state. If the term 'motor vehicles' is meant to exclude buses and earth moving equipment, and perhaps other vehicles operating under their own power, the term should be sufficiently defined to show what is included and excluded. If data relating to motor vehicle parts and accessories is no longer required this should be eliminated. If the only reports desired are those of specific divisions, the divisions should be stated. If copies are desired where originals are not available, the subpoena should so specify.

It is only when clarification of this nature has been made that clear cut issues will emerge as to whether the applicant has any valid objections to producing what the Government is presently calling for. Indeed, it may be that the applicant will raise no objections in view of the relatively light burden which may then be placed upon it or that agreement can be reached on the material to be produced.

The motion to quash the subpoena as initially issued is granted without prejudice to the service of a new subpoena specifying with reasonable precision the items which the Government now wants.

It is so ordered.

Application of General Motors Corp.