In Re GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS ( 2014 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 13-2498
IN RE: GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS
ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
[Hon. John J. McConnell, Jr., U.S. District Judge]
Before
Howard, Circuit Judge,
Souter*, Associate Justice,
and Stahl, Circuit Judge.
William P. Devereaux, with whom James W. Ryan, Matthew C.
Reeber, Misty G. Delgado and Pannone Lopes Devereaux & West LLC
were on brief, for appellant
Donald C. Lockhart, Assistant United States Attorney, with
whom Peter F. Neronha, United States Attorney, was on brief, for
appellee.
February 20, 2014
*
Hon. David H. Souter, Associate Justice (Ret.) of the
Supreme Court of the United States, sitting by designation.
HOWARD, Circuit Judge. A venerable legal Latinism, lex
non cogit ad impossibilia, teaches that the law does not compel the
impossible. Guided by that august adage, we hold that a subpoena
duces tecum compelling the production of documents to a now-defunct
grand jury cannot be enforced by civil contempt sanctions before a
successor grand jury, and we accordingly vacate the district
court's order holding the appellant in civil contempt. We reject,
however, the appellant's additional contentions that tribal
sovereign immunity shielded it from subpoena and that the subpoena
was unreasonably broad in scope.
I.
Because this case is under seal, we provide only a
cursory rehearsal of the facts. On October 2, 2012, appellant
Narragansett Indian Tribal Historic Preservation Office ("NITHPO")
was served with a subpoena duces tecum issued by a grand jury in
the District of Rhode Island the previous month.1 The subpoena
directed the custodian of NITHPO's records to appear before the
grand jury with a series of documents on the morning of October 24,
2012. During the course of ensuing negotiations with NITHPO as to
the scope of the subpoena, the government repeatedly extended the
return date for the subpoena. When these negotiations proved
1
Another subpoena duces tecum, not at issue on this appeal,
was served on the Narragansett Indian Tribe. The Tribe and NITHPO
proceeded jointly in resisting their respective subpoenas until
September 2013, at which point the Tribe complied with the district
court's order compelling production of the subpoenaed records.
2
fruitless, the government ultimately set a return date of February
27, 2013. On the last day before that deadline, NITHPO informed
the government that it would not produce the subpoenaed records
before the grand jury, asserting inter alia that tribal sovereign
immunity shielded it from the grand jury's subpoena power.
The sitting grand jury was subsequently discharged, and
a new grand jury was empanelled in its place on April 16, 2013. On
May 9, the government moved to compel NITHPO's compliance with the
2012 subpoena, representing in its motion that although the
subpoena had been issued by a previous grand jury, the
investigation had been transferred to the newly-empanelled grand
jury. NITHPO objected to the government's motion and moved to
quash the subpoena on grounds of tribal sovereign immunity and
unreasonableness.
On August 2, the district court entered an order granting
the government's motion to compel and, except for some narrowing of
the scope of the subpoena, denying NITHPO's motion to quash. The
court ordered NITHPO to "comply with the October 24, 2012 grand
jury subpoenas . . . at a mutually agreed upon date and time within
30 days."2 After NITHPO's custodian of records failed to appear on
the agreed-upon date, September 18, the government moved for a
court order requiring NITHPO to show cause why it should not be
2
NITHPO filed a motion for reconsideration of this order,
which the district court denied on September 16.
3
held in civil contempt for its noncompliance. The district court
issued a show cause order on October 22, and after a contempt
hearing the following month, adjudged NITHPO in civil contempt and
imposed a fine of $500 per day of noncompliance beginning on
December 4. This appeal followed.
II.
NITHPO raises three primary arguments on appeal,
contending that 1) the underlying subpoena was no longer
enforceable following the discharge of the issuing grand jury in
April 2013; 2) NITHPO enjoyed tribal sovereign immunity from the
grand jury's subpoena power; and 3) the subpoena was unreasonably
broad in scope under Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c)(2). We address each
argument in turn, reviewing de novo the district court's legal
determinations as to enforceability and sovereign immunity, see
Project B.A.S.I.C. v. Kemp, 947 F.2d 11, 15 (1st Cir. 1991), and
reviewing for abuse of discretion the district court's decision as
to reasonableness under Rule 17(c)(2), see United States v.
LaRouche Campaign, 841 F.2d 1176, 1179 (1st Cir. 1988).
A. Enforceability
In response to the district court's show cause order,
NITHPO contended unsuccessfully that the district court could not
enforce a subpoena issued by a defunct grand jury. NITHPO raises
the same argument in this appeal, averring that civil contempt
sanctions for noncompliance with a subpoena cannot be imposed
4
beyond the life of the grand jury under whose aegis the subpoena
was issued. The government in turn suggests that civil contempt
sanctions are keyed to the life of the grand jury for which the
contempt order was issued -- here, the grand jury empanelled on
April 16, 2013. The parties' arguments rest on divergent
interpretations of the applicable statute and caselaw, to which we
presently turn.
We have described the federal courts' contempt power as
"one of the most potent weapons in the judicial armamentarium."
Project B.A.S.I.C., 947 F.2d at 16. Although that authority was
not codified until 1970, civil contempt sanctions "have been
employed against recalcitrant grand jury witnesses since the
earliest days of the federal courts." Douglas C. Berman, Note,
Coercive Contempt and the Federal Grand Jury, 79 Colum. L. Rev.
735, 735, 740 (1979); see also, e.g., Gompers v. Buck's Stove &
Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 442 (1911). Unlike criminal contempt
sanctions, "incarceration for civil contempt is not for the purpose
of punishing recalcitrant respondents but rather is the modern
'persuasive' tool that is used in substitution of the barbaric
placing of stones on the subject's chest, which was formerly used
to literally press the recipient into submission." United
States v. Marquardo, 149 F.3d 36, 39 (1st Cir. 1998). An
imprisoned civil contemnor is therefore said to "carr[y] the keys
of his prison in his own pocket." Gompers, 221 U.S. at 442
5
(internal quotation marks omitted). In keeping with this coercive
function, courts have long recognized that civil contempt sanctions
are necessarily limited to the period in which the contemnor can
unlock the figurative prison door by purging himself of contempt.
See, e.g., Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 371-72
(1966); Marquardo, 149 F.3d at 39-40; In re Grand Jury Proceedings
(Caucus Distribs., Inc.), 871 F.2d 156, 161-62 (1st Cir. 1989);
United States v. Levine, 288 F.2d 272, 274 (2d Cir. 1961); Loubriel
v. United States, 9 F.2d 807, 809 (2d Cir. 1926) (L. Hand, J.);
United States v. Collins, 146 F. 553, 554 (D. Or. 1906).
In Shillitani, involving two consolidated cases in which
the district courts ordered recalcitrant grand jury witnesses
imprisoned until they purged their contumacy or until two years had
passed, the Supreme Court held that the two-year period of
confinement was inappropriate to the extent that it exceeded the
term of the sitting grand jury. As the Court explained,
the justification for coercive imprisonment as
applied to civil contempt depends upon the
ability of the contemnor to comply with the
court's order. Where the grand jury has been
finally discharged, a contumacious witness can
no longer be confined since he then has no
further opportunity to purge himself of
contempt. Accordingly, the contempt orders
. . . were improper insofar as they imposed
sentences that extended beyond the cessation
of the grand jury's inquiry into petitioners'
activities. Having sought to deal only with
civil contempt, the District Courts lacked
authority to imprison petitioners for a period
longer than the term of the grand jury. . . .
Once the grand jury ceases to function, the
6
rationale for civil contempt vanishes, and the
contemnor has to be released.
384 U.S. at 371-72 (citation and footnote omitted). Shillitani
did, however, leave open the possibility of reiterative contempt
sanctions before successive grand juries: the Court explained in a
footnote that although any given period of confinement for civil
contempt could not last beyond the term of the sitting grand jury,
"sentences of imprisonment may be continued or reimposed if the
witnesses adhere to their refusal to testify before a successor
grand jury." Id. at 371 n.8.
Four years after the Supreme Court's decision in
Shillitani, Congress enacted Title III of the Organized Crime
Control Act, Pub. L. No. 91-452, 84 Stat. 922, 932 (1970) (codified
at 28 U.S.C. § 1826), in an endeavor to "codify present civil
contempt practice with respect to recalcitrant witnesses in federal
grand jury and court proceedings," H.R. Rep. No. 91-1549, at 4008
(1970).3 Section 1826(a) provides:
Whenever a witness in any proceeding before or
ancillary to any court or grand jury of the
United States refuses without just cause shown
to comply with an order of the court to
testify or provide other information,
including any book, paper, document, record,
3
Representative Poff, a House sponsor of the legislation,
stressed its consistency with the traditional limitations on civil
contempt recognized in Shillitani: "[U]pon the termination of the
proceedings at which the witness was ordered to testify, the
witness is entitled to his release because he could no longer obey
the court's order if he wished to do so." 116 Cong. Rec. 35291
(1970).
7
recording or other material, the court, upon
such refusal, or when such refusal is duly
brought to its attention, may summarily order
his confinement at a suitable place until such
time as the witness is willing to give such
testimony or provide such information. No
period of such confinement shall exceed the
life of–-
(1) the court proceeding, or
(2) the term of the grand jury,
including extensions,
before which such refusal to comply with the
court order occurred, but in no event shall
such confinement exceed eighteen months.
The parties dispute the significance of both Shillitani
and § 1826(a) in this case. Their sharpest dissensus, however,
concerns the import of our holding in Caucus Distributors, in which
we relied on both Shillitani and § 1826(a) to hold that civil
contempt fines could not extend "beyond the life of the original
grand jury" and into the term of a successor grand jury. 871 F.2d
at 161. Our holding rested on Shillitani's conclusion that the
justification for coercive civil contempt vanishes when the
contemnor can no longer purge himself:
Perhaps our most significant difficulty
lies in contemplating how, when witnesses have
been subpoenaed, as here, both 'to appear
. . . to testify' and to bring documents to a
specific grand jury and that jury has been
discharged, a court would handle attempts to
purge. . . . [A] court would be placed in the
anomalous position of determining whether the
response of a witness in supplying or failing
to supply documents facilitated or frustrated
the work of a grand jury that no longer
existed. . . . Particularly since it would be
relatively simple -- and clear cut -- for a
successor grand jury to reimpose coercive
8
sanctions, we prefer not to enter this
thicket.
Id. at 162.
The government suggests that Caucus Distributors is
distinguishable from this case in that both the underlying subpoena
and the subsequent contempt order were issued during the term of
the first grand jury. In its estimation, the "original" grand jury
contemplated in Caucus Distributors is the one before which the
subpoena was enforced via contempt sanctions (here, the still-
empanelled second grand jury); NITHPO, by contrast, implies that
Caucus Distributors instead focused on the grand jury under whose
auspices the underlying subpoena was issued in the first place
(here, the defunct first grand jury).
We find Caucus Distributors inconclusive on this point.
Moreover, although the government highlights the language of
§ 1826(a) limiting confinement to "the term of the grand jury . . .
before which such refusal to comply with the court order occurred,"
we conclude that § 1826(a) also does not address the precise
question presented in this case. The issue before us is not the
proper duration of the contempt order imposed during the second
grand jury's term, but rather whether that contempt order, based on
NITHPO's failure to comply with a previous grand jury's subpoena,
was properly issued at all.
The government's position is not without some support in
the caselaw. Confronted with a case similar to this one, in which
9
an initial grand jury issued a subpoena duces tecum and the
district court granted the government's motion to compel compliance
during the term of a successor grand jury, the D.C. Circuit
distinguished our holding in Caucus Distributors and held that the
first grand jury's subpoena could be enforced during the term of
the successor grand jury. In re Sealed Case, 223 F.3d 775, 778
(D.C. Cir. 2000). In the D.C. Circuit's view, because the
successor grand jury had "indisputably carried the investigation
forward," the concerns that we had stated in Caucus Distributors
about determining "when an investigation has ceased" were not
implicated. Id. (citing Caucus Distribs., 871 F.2d at 161)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
The D.C. Circuit, like the government on this appeal,
also pointed to our observation in Caucus Distributors that "a
subpoena issued by one grand jury may be used to obtain evidence
for a second grand jury." Caucus Distribs., 871 F.2d at 160
(citing In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Sutton), 658 F.2d 782, 783
(10th Cir. 1981) (upholding a district court order commanding
delivery of documents subpoenaed by an expired grand jury)). That
isolated sentence, however, cannot bear the weight placed upon it.
Because the government in Caucus Distributors did not move to
compel compliance before the second grand jury, we did not have
occasion, as we do now, to determine the enforceability of the
first grand jury's subpoena before a successor grand jury. Indeed,
10
we cited Sutton for this proposition only in describing the
underpinning of the government's unsuccessful argument in Caucus
Distributors. As an "observation[] . . . not essential to the
determination of the legal questions then before the court," this
statement is therefore non-binding dicta. Arcam Pharm. Corp. v.
Faría, 513 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks
omitted); see also Dedham Water Co., Inc. v. Cumberland Farms
Dairy, Inc., 972 F.2d 453, 459 (1st Cir. 1992).4
To the extent that Sutton and Sealed Case approve the use
of the contempt power in the circumstances now before us, we
disagree with those decisions. Such a rule, allowing the
imposition of contempt sanctions even where a contemnor is unable
to purge himself of contumacy before the subpoenaing grand jury,
would vitiate the coercive rationale for civil contempt. The
4
The government also points to cases in which we have held
that the government can transfer materials presented before one
grand jury to a successor grand jury. See, e.g., In re United
States, 441 F.3d 44, 63 (1st Cir. 2006); United States v. Contenti,
735 F.2d 628, 631 n.1 (1st Cir. 1984). These cases are not germane
to the question presented here, however, as they address whether
evidence already obtained by the first grand jury is transferable
to the second grand jury, not whether the second grand jury can
obtain new evidence by enforcing its predecessor's subpoena.
We also find distinguishable the Fifth Circuit's decision in
United States v. Stevens, 510 F.2d 1101, 1106 (5th Cir. 1975).
Although Stevens upheld a civil contempt order based on the
appellant's noncompliance with a previous grand jury's subpoena,
the first grand jury's subpoena had expressly ordered the appellant
to testify before the second grand jury after its empanelment.
Stevens therefore addressed the distinct question of whether the
first grand jury was authorized to order the appellant's
"appearance before a grand jury not yet empanelled." Id. at 1104.
11
second grand jury may have taken up the investigation, but the
subpoena was issued in the name of, and ordered the production of
records before, the first grand jury at a specified date and time.
As Judge Hand stated in Loubriel, NITHPO's "duty [to testify] . . .
was measured by the subpoena, the only process under which [NITHPO]
could be required to appear and to testify at all." 9 F.2d at 809.
That subpoena "did not require [NITHPO's] attendance before any
other than the [October 2012] grand jury." Id.; see also In re
Grand Jury, August, 1965 (McClintock Merchantile Co.), 360 F.2d
917, 918 (7th Cir. 1966) (finding "no basis for anxiety that the
respondent can be required to appear . . . before some other grand
jury" under a subpoena "direct[ing] attendance on a certain day, at
a certain hour, before the August term, 1965 of the grand jury").
It follows as a matter of logic that NITHPO could only comply with
the subpoena so long as the issuing grand jury was in existence.
In this case, the subpoenaing grand jury was dead to
begin with.5 It had expired even before the government moved to
compel compliance with its subpoena. The district court's order
granting the motion to compel therefore ran afoul of the maxim "lex
non cogit ad impossibilia" -- literally, "[t]he law does not compel
to impossible ends,"6 Black's Law Dictionary 1844 (9th ed. 2009).
5
Cf. Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol (1843).
6
This principle is discussed more thoroughly in Herbert
Broom, A Selection of Legal Maxims 237-46 (6th ed. 1884). It is
perhaps most familiarly embodied in the common-law contractual
12
See Collins, 146 F. at 554. NITHPO could not produce documents
before a grand jury that no longer existed, and therefore "could,
of course, be no longer compelled to discharge a duty which had
ended." Loubriel, 9 F.2d at 809; see also In re Grand Jury
Proceedings, Thursday Special Grand Jury Sept. Term, 1991, 33 F.3d
342, 347 (4th Cir. 1994) ("The subpoenas issued by the September
Term 1991 grand jury . . . clearly do not have force as a result of
the expiration of that grand jury."); accord In re Special
Investigation No. 195, 454 A.2d 843, 846 (Md. 1983) ("The grand
jury was dead. There was no one to whom the subpoena was
returnable. . . . It thus was impossible to enforce the
subpoena.").
The impossibility of compliance in turn left NITHPO
unable to purge itself of contempt. The proverbial key in NITHPO's
pocket fit a lock that no longer existed. Cf. Gompers, 221 U.S. at
442. We accordingly take guidance from Shillitani's dictate that
civil contempt sanctions are inappropriate when a contemnor "has no
further opportunity to purge himself of contempt." 384 U.S. at
doctrine of impossibility, which excuses a party's contractual
performance "[w]here the means of performance have been nullified,
making performance objectively impossible." 30 Williston on
Contracts § 77:25 (4th ed. 2013); see also, e.g., Taylor v.
Caldwell, 122 E.R. 309, 314 (K.B. 1863) ("The principle seems to us
to be that, in contracts in which the performance depends on the
continued existence of a given person or thing, a condition is
implied that the impossibility of performance arising from the
perishing of the person or thing shall excuse the performance.");
The Tornado, 108 U.S. 342, 351 (1883) (applying rule of Taylor).
13
371. Because it was impossible for NITHPO to purge itself of
contempt, the contempt order served no coercive purpose and was
therefore improperly entered. See Loubriel, 9 F.2d at 809(following discharge of the subpoenaing grand jury, appellant
"could not be lawfully detained thereafter, merely to compel
compliance with the subpoena"); Sara Sun Beale et al., Grand Jury
Law and Practice § 11:17 (2d. ed. 2013) ("[T]he witness's
confinement cannot last longer than the session of the grand jury
before which the witness was subpoenaed, because the termination of
the grand jury's session ends the witness's ability to comply with
the court's order, and thus ends the possible coercive effect of
the civil contempt sanction."); see also Levine, 288 F.2d at 274.
In parting, we note that the government has argued that
this conclusion would establish "an arbitrary and formalistic rule
requiring reissuance of subpoenas upon each transfer between grand
juries," which "merely creates a trap for the unwary prosecutor and
an incentive for would-be contemnors to engage in delaying tactics,
as happened here." Of concern to us, however, is that the
government's proposed alternative -- allowing reiterative civil
contempt sanctions before future grand juries based on
noncompliance with an old subpoena -- would render the grand jury
subpoena process all but meaningless. Particularly since we and
other courts have long recognized that a prosecutor may simply
"obtain subpoenas issued in blank by the court, fill in the blanks,
14
and have the witnesses served without consulting the grand jury,"
In re Melvin, 546 F.2d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 1976) -- a point that the
government itself stresses on this appeal -- we see no great
administrative difficulty in requiring, as a precondition to the
use of coercive contempt power, the issuance of a new subpoena for
each new grand jury. If the current grand jury or a successor
desires information from a recalcitrant NITHPO, the government need
do no more than obtain a new, enforceable subpoena. That is a
small price to pay for access to "one of the most potent weapons in
the judicial armamentarium." Project B.A.S.I.C., 947 F.2d at 16.
B. Tribal Sovereign Immunity
Although our holding that the expired grand jury's
subpoena was unenforceable would ordinarily render NITHPO's
remaining challenges moot, this case falls within the "capable of
repetition yet evading review" exception to the mootness doctrine.
As formulated by the Supreme Court, the exception applies where
"(1) the challenged action was in its duration too short to be
fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there
was a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would
be subjected to the same action again." Weinstein v. Bradford, 423
U.S. 147, 149 (1975); see also, e.g., ACLU of Mass. v. U.S.
Conference of Catholic Bishops, 705 F.3d 44, 57 (1st Cir. 2013).
Both criteria are satisfied here. First, the current grand jury is
continuing its predecessor's investigation and, in light of our
15
holding today, can reasonably be expected to issue a new subpoena
to NITHPO. Second, according to the government's brief, the
current grand jury is presently set to expire in April 2014,
leaving too short a period of time to fully litigate a new
subpoena's validity. See Thursday Special Grand Jury Sept. Term,
1991, 33 F.3d at 347 (finding an expired grand jury's subpoenas
unenforceable, but holding that appellants' objections to the
subpoenas' validity were capable of repetition yet evading review);
see also In re Sealed Case, 877 F.2d 976, 981 n.6 (D.C. Cir. 1989).
We therefore turn to NITHPO's argument that, as a branch of the
Narragansett Indian Tribe, it was immune to subpoena.
Proceeding on the assumption that NITHPO is an arm of the
Narragansett Indian Tribe whose sovereign immunity is coextensive
with that of the tribe (a premise that the government does not
dispute on appeal), the district court nevertheless determined that
tribal sovereign immunity did not operate as a bar to the grand
jury's subpoena power. On appeal, NITHPO assigns error to that
conclusion, arguing that the subpoena "constitute[d] a
nonpermissible intrusion into the internal affairs of a federally
recognized tribe, and thus, [that] its enforcement would violate
tribal sovereign immunity."
The Supreme Court has described Indian tribes as "unique
aggregations possessing attributes of sovereignty over both their
members and their territory," Montana v. United States, 450 U.S.
16544, 563 (1981) (internal quotation marks omitted), including
sovereign immunity from suit, see Kiowa Tribe of Okla. v. Mfg.
Techs., Inc., 523 U.S. 751, 754 (1998). Nevertheless, the Court
has been "careful to note that, through their original
incorporation into the United States as well as through specific
treaties and statutes, the Indian tribes have lost many of the
attributes of sovereignty." Montana, 450 U.S. at 563; see also
Washington v. Confederated Tribes of Colville Indian Reservation,
447 U.S. 134, 154 (1980) ("[T]ribal sovereignty is dependent on,
and subordinate to, [] the Federal Government . . . ."); United
States v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 309 U.S. 506, 512 (1940) ("It is
as though the immunity which was [the tribes'] as sovereigns passed
to the United States for their benefit, as their tribal properties
did.").
Other circuits have accordingly recognized the United
States as a superior sovereign from whose suits the tribes enjoy no
sovereign immunity, see, e.g., Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla.
v. United States, 698 F.3d 1326, 1331 (11th Cir. 2012); Reich v.
Mashantucket Sand & Gravel, 95 F.3d 174, 182 (2d Cir. 1996);
Quileute Indian Tribe v. Babbitt, 18 F.3d 1456, 1459 (9th Cir.
1994); United States v. Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, 827 F.2d
380, 382-83 (8th Cir. 1987); United States v. Yakima Tribal Court,
806 F.2d 853, 861 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. White Mountain
Apache Tribe, 784 F.2d 917, 920 (9th Cir. 1986), even where
17
Congress has not specifically abrogated the tribes' immunity, see
EEOC v. Peabody W. Coal Co., 400 F.3d 774, 781 (9th Cir. 2005).
Even assuming arguendo that the enforcement of a subpoena
represents a "suit" against a tribe for purposes of sovereign
immunity (a premise that the government contests), we find no
reason to depart from this bedrock principle, and accordingly
conclude that tribal sovereign immunity provides no refuge from the
subpoena power of a federal grand jury.
For the sake of completeness, we further note that, even
if the tribes did originally enjoy sovereign immunity from federal
grand jury process, Congress has abrogated that immunity through
the enactment of federal criminal statutes extending to Indian
country "the general laws of the United States as to the punishment
of offenses committed in any place within the sole and exclusive
jurisdiction of the United States." 18 U.S.C. § 1152; see also id.§ 1153 (establishing federal jurisdiction over major crimes
committed in Indian country). That grant of criminal jurisdiction
necessarily entails the authorization of investigative and
enforcement mechanisms such as the grand jury subpoena power. See
In re Long Visitor, 523 F.2d 443, 446-47 (8th Cir. 1975) ("[T]he
extension by Congress of federal jurisdiction to crimes committed
on Indian reservations inherently includes every aspect of federal
criminal procedure applicable to the prosecution of such crimes.");
United States v. Boggs, 493 F. Supp. 1050, 1054 (D. Mont. 1980)
18
(stating that tribal sovereign immunity from grand jury process
would render Indian criminal statutes "almost universally
unenforceable"); cf. Narragansett Indian Tribe v. Rhode Island, 449
F.3d 16, 22, 26-27 (1st Cir. 2006) (en banc) (holding that the
Narragansett Tribe waived its sovereign immunity from the execution
of a state search warrant by entering into a land claims settlement
providing that "all laws of the State of Rhode Island shall be in
full force and effect on the settlement lands").
C. Reasonableness
NITHPO lastly argues that the district court should have
quashed the subpoena as unreasonably broad and burdensome. Fed. R.
Crim. P. 17(c)(2) authorizes a district court to quash or modify a
subpoena "if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive." A
subpoena is presumed to be reasonable, and the recipient bears the
burden of establishing its unreasonableness. United States v. R.
Enters., Inc., 498 U.S. 292, 301 (1991).
As modified by the district court, the subpoena duces
tecum seeks fifteen categories of documents spanning a five-year
period, including, inter alia, contracts and correspondence between
NITHPO and government entities, payroll records and documents
concerning NITHPO employees and contractors, and meeting minutes.
Citing United States v. Gurule, 437 F.2d 239, 241 (10th Cir. 1970),
for the threefold proposition that "(1) the subpoena may command
only the production of things relevant to the investigation being
19
pursued; (2) specification of things to be produced must be made
with reasonable particularity; and (3) production of records
covering only a reasonable time may be required," NITHPO avers that
the subpoena duces tecum is deficient under the latter two prongs,
neither specifying the documents to be produced with "reasonable
particularity" nor "covering only a reasonable time."
District courts might indeed reach divergent conclusions
as to the reasonableness of this subpoena, but that is not the
standard of review on appeal. Reviewing only for abuse of
discretion, see LaRouche Campaign, 841 F.2d at 1179, we think that
the denial of NITHPO's Rule 17(c)(2) motion fell within the wide
bourn of the district court's discretion.7 NITHPO ultimately does
little more than enumerate the categories of requested documents
and generally protest "[t]he sheer amount of time and resources
that would be required to comply" with the subpoena duces tecum.
But all subpoenas demand some amount of time and resources from
their recipients, and absent a more specific explanation of how the
burden in this case is unreasonable, we decline to disturb the
district court's judgment. Cf. In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 115
7
Given the standard of review, the two appellate cases on
which NITHPO relies, United States v. Wencke, 604 F.2d 607, 612
(9th Cir. 1979), and Margoles v. United States, 402 F.2d 450, 451-
52 (7th Cir. 1968), are crucially distinguishable in that they
merely held that quashing a subpoena was within the district
court's discretion. That alone does not compel the converse
conclusion that the refusal to quash would have been an abuse of
discretion.
20
F.3d 1240, 1244 (5th Cir. 1997) (holding that subpoena recipients
failed to establish unreasonableness by "[s]imply citing the types
of information sought by the government").
As a last effort, NITHPO also reintroduces its tribal
sovereign immunity argument in new garb, suggesting that "[w]hat
constitutes an unreasonable intrusion into the workings of an
entity is certainly different . . . when that entity is a sovereign
nation that has recognized protections from interference with
internal tribal matters." We decline NITHPO's invitation to graft
sovereign immunity considerations onto Rule 17(c)(2), and in any
event, this assertion lacks force in light of our conclusion in
section B supra.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the subpoena
duces tecum was unenforceable after the expiration of the issuing
grand jury. We therefore vacate the district court's order holding
NITHPO in civil contempt. In the event a subpoena similar in scope
is subsequently issued and NITHPO again challenges its validity,
our holdings on tribal sovereign immunity and reasonableness of the
subpoena shall apply to any such proceeding.
21