The opinion of the court was delivered by: DITTER
Presently before the court is the motion of Local 542 of the International Union of Operating Engineers to quash a federal grand jury subpoena duces tecum calling for the production of "all original books and records of above-referred to organization for the period January 1, 1972 through June 30, 1974."
The Union contends that (1) in order to enforce the subpoena, the Government must state the purpose and function of the grand jury proceeding and demonstrate the relevance and necessity of each document sought; and (2) the production of these documents would effectively halt the business of the Union, since it would be unable to function without its books and records. For the reasons expressed herein, the motion of the Union will be granted with respect to all documents not included within a specifically enumerated category, but otherwise refused.
At the outset, I am guided by the principle that a grand jury "is a grand inquest, a body with powers of investigation and inquisition, the scope of whose inquiries is not to be limited . . . by doubts whether any particular individual will be found properly subject to an accusation of crime." United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 94 S. Ct. 613, 617, 38 L. Ed. 2d 561 (1974); Blair v. United States, 250 U.S. 273, 282, 39 S. Ct. 468, 471, 63 L. Ed. 979 (1919). As the Supreme Court stated in Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 700-01, 92 S. Ct. 2646, 2666, 33 L. Ed. 2d 626 (1972), and reaffirmed in United States v. Calandra, supra, 94 S. Ct. at 618:
[The] investigation of crime by the grand jury implements a fundamental governmental role of securing the safety of the person and property of the citizen . . ."
The role of the grand jury as an important instrument of effective law enforcement necessarily includes an investigatory function with respect to determining whether a crime has been committed and who committed it . . . 'When the grand jury is performing its investigatory function into a general problem area . . . society's interest is best served by a thorough and extensive investigation.' Wood v. Georgia, 370 U.S. 375, 392 [82 S. Ct. 1364, 1374, 8 L. Ed. 2d 569] (1962). A grand jury investigation 'is not fully carried out until every available clue has been run down and all witnesses examined in every proper way to find if a crime has been committed.' United States v. Stone, 429 F.2d 138, 140 (C.A. 2 1970). Such an investigation may be triggered by tips, rumors, evidence proffered by the prosecutor, or the personal knowledge of the grand jurors. Costello v. United States, supra, 350 U.S. at 362 [76 S. Ct. 406 at 408]. It is only after the grand jury has examined the evidence that a determination of whether the proceeding will result in an indictment can be made . . . .
In what I view as a response to the Union's first objection,
the Government stated that the grand jury's investigations into the financial aspects of the Union related to possible violation of three federal statutes:
(1) interference with commerce by threats or violence, 18 U.S.C. § 1951;
(2) restrictions on payments and loans to employee representatives, labor organizations, officers and employees of labor organizations, and to employees or groups or committees of employees, 29 U.S.C. 186; and
(3) the fiduciary responsibility of officers of labor organizations, 29 U.S.C. § 501.
I am persuaded that the materials specifically categorized in the attachment to the subpoena all are relevant to an investigation of this type,
especially in light of the policy favoring robust and extensive grand jury inquiries articulated by the Court in United States v. Calandra, supra, and Branzburg v. Hayes, supra.
Turning to whether the subpoena must be quashed because it is "unreasonable or oppressive",
it is well settled that "a grand jury's subpoena duces tecum will be disallowed if it is 'far too sweeping in its terms to be regarded as reasonable' under the Fourth Amendment." United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. at 346, 94 S. Ct. at 619; Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 76, 26 S. Ct. 370, 380, 50 L. Ed. 652 (1906). Nevertheless, only in an extreme case of a clear showing of unreasonableness, of abuse of power by the Government, will a court be induced to quash an otherwise valid grand jury subpoena on the ground that it is overly burdensome. In re Corrado Brothers, Inc., 367 F. Supp. 1126, 1132 (D. Del. 1973); Petition of Borden Co., 75 F. Supp. 857, 863 (M.D. Ill. 1948).
Although no definitive set of criteria have been listed for determining reasonableness, three ...