Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Chavez

September 5, 2008

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONER,
v.
RICHARD CHAVEZ, RESPONDENT.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONER,
v.
BILL DONOVAN, RESPONDENT.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONER,
v.
HUNTER P. NADLER, RESPONDENT.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONER,
v.
TOM LINSCHEID, RESPONDENT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR SUMMARY ENFORCEMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SUBPOENA (Document 1)

ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR SUMMARY ENFORCEMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SUBPOENA (Document 1)

ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR SUMMARY ENFORCEMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SUBPOENA (Document 1)

ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR SUMMARY ENFORCEMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SUBPOENA (Document 1)

Petitioner United States of America ("Petitioner") filed the instant petitions for summary enforcement of United States Department of Agriculture ("USDA"), Agricultural Marketing Service ("AMS") subpoenas duces tecum issued to Respondents Richard Chavez, Bill Donovan, dba Donovan Farms, Hunter P. Nadler, and Tom Linscheid ("Respondents") in June 2007. The matter was heard on September 4, 2008, before the Honorable Dennis L. Beck, United States Magistrate Judge. Kimberly A. Gaab appeared on behalf of Petitioner. Brian C. Leighton appeared on behalf of Respondents.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY

AMS is investigating whether Respondents violated the Marketing Order for Raisins Produced from Grapes Grown in California, 7 C.F.R. pt. 989 ("Raisin Marketing Order") during the period December 1, 2003, through July 31, 2006. Specifically, AMS is attempting to determine whether Respondents engaged in the handling of raisins, and if so, whether Respondents complied with the requirements of the AMAA and the Raisin Marketing Order during the relevant period. The AMS is also investigating Marvin and Laura Horne and their various entities. The AMS therefore believes that Respondents have information that can either (1) confirm that the Hornes, et al., engaged in handling activities; or (2) establish that Respondents, rather than the Hornes, et al., were handlers during the relevant time period.

For the purposes of this investigation, AMS issued subpoenas duces tecum to Respondents in June 2007, and the subpoenas were properly served. Respondents did not appear at the appointed times and no documents were produced.

On July 3, 2008, Petitioner filed the instant actions to enforce the subpoenas. The Court issued an order to show cause why the subpoenas should not be enforced and set the matter for hearing.

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

The scope of judicial inquiry in an agency subpoena enforcement proceeding is quite narrow. Petitioner is entitled to enforcement of the subpoena if (1) Congress has granted it the authority to investigate; (2) the procedural requirements have been followed; and (3) the evidence is relevant and material to the investigation. E.E.O.C. v. Children's Hosp. Med. Ctr. of N. Cal., 719 F.2d 1426, 1428 (9th Cir. 1983) (overruled on other grounds). If Petitioner establishes these factors, the subpoena should be enforced unless Respondents can prove that the inquiry is unreasonable because it is overbroad or unduly burdensome. Id.

Section 10(h) of the AMAA, 7 U.S.C. ยง 610(h), incorporates and vests in the Secretary of Agriculture the subpoena power set forth in Section 9 of the Federal ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.