Unpublished Disposition, 863 F.2d 886 (9th Cir. 1986)

MEMORANDUM^** 

On January 21, 1986 the State of Washington, acting pursuant to the Unemployment Compensation Act, R.C.W. Secs. 50.01-50.98 (1987), conducted a routine audit of plaintiff/appellant Groves' business. Thereafter, the state served Groves with a subpoena duces tecum for various business records and obtained a state court show cause order against Groves. Groves filed this action in federal district court claiming that the state's request for documents violated his fourth amendment right to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. The district court granted summary judgment for the state, holding that the subpoena was not unlawful or unenforceable under the fourth amendment. Federal question jurisdiction exists to determine whether Groves may enjoin the state's request. See Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, 463 U.S. 85, 96 n. 14 (1983); Southern Pac. Transp. Co. v. Public Utils. Comm'n., 716 F.2d 1285, 1288 (9th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 936 (1984).

DISCUSSION

Judicial review of an agency subpoena enforcement proceeding is generally limited to determining whether (1) the agency possesses the investigative authority; (2) procedural requirements have been met; and (3) the evidence sought is relevant and material to the investigation. Peters v. United States, 853 F.2d 692, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). Groves does not contest the state's investigative authority or the procedures followed in this case. He contends, however, that the subpoena is unreasonable because the requested documents are irrelevant and beyond the scope of the state's inquiry. He asserts that the state's request should be limited to those documents specifically mentioned in R.C.W. Sec. 50.12.070 and Washington Administrative Code Sec. 192-12-050 (1986).

Groves misconstrues the statute and the regulation. The state has explicit authority to request all reports relevant to carrying out the purpose of the Act. See R.C.W. Sec. 50.12.070. The materials sought by the state here are relevant to whether Groves paid the proper amount of unemployment tax. We agree with the district court that the state reasonably explained how each enumerated document is relevant and necessary to the state's investigation.

Groves argues that even if the information sought by the state is relevant and material, the subpoena is nevertheless indefinite, overbroad and burdensome and should therefore be rejected. See Peters, 853 F.2d at 699 (subpoena cannot be too indefinite or overbroad); United States Env't. Protection Agency v. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co., 836 F.2d 443, 446 (9th Cir. 1988) (subpoena cannot be unduly burdensome). The information sought here is not indefinite since it falls squarely within the scope of the state's statute. The search is not overbroad because the specific documents requested cover a limited period of time. Moreover, only minimal amounts of time and expense are necessary to fulfill the request. The subpoena is therefore not indefinite, overbroad or unduly burdensome, and thus does not violate the fourth amendment.

AFFIRMED.