In re Beef Industry Antitrust Litigation, M.D.L. No. 248.

Decision Date17 August 1978
Docket NumberM.D.L. No. 248.
Citation457 F. Supp. 210
PartiesIn re BEEF INDUSTRY ANTITRUST LITIGATION.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas

Lex Hawkins, Hawkins & Norris, Des Moines, Iowa, John A. Cochrane, Cochrane & Bresnahan, St. Paul, Minn., for plaintiffs.

Jeffrey S. Davidson, Kirkland & Ellis, Chicago, Ill., Lawrence G. Newman and John L. Shook, Newman, Shook & Newman, Dallas, Tex., for National Provisioner, Inc.

Edward W. Rothe, Freeman, Rothe, Freeman & Salzman, Chicago, Ill., for Iowa Beef Processors, Inc.

Stanley M. Brand, Gen. Counsel to Edmund L. Henshaw, Jr., Clerk, Steven R. Ross, Asst. Counsel to the Clerk, Donald E. O'Brien, Sp. Counsel, Committee on Small Business, John M. Atkisson, Counsel to the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C., for Congressional Committees.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

WILLIAM M. TAYLOR, Jr., District Judge.

On March 16, 1978, two attorneys representing Plaintiffs in this litigation, John Cochrane and Lex Hawkins, and an officer of a Plaintiff, Glenn L. Freie, moved to the Court for leave to comply with Congressional subpoenas.

The four subpoenas were issued by two Congressional subcommittees, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation of the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee and the Subcommittee on SBA and SBIC Authority and General Small Business Problems of the House Committee on Small Business, both of the House of Representatives of the United States, 95th Congress.

Parts of the materials subpoenaed are covered by a protective order instituted in this proceeding.1 On March 22, 1978, a hearing was held in this Court in order to determine whether the motion of Messrs. Freie, Hawkins and Cochrane should be granted. At the conclusion of that hearing the Court orally announced its decision to deny the motion, which announcement is appended to this opinion. A formal order to that effect was entered on April 4, 1978.

May 30, 1978, the Subcommittees moved by their counsel and Counsel to the Clerk of the House for leave to file their motion to grant Plaintiff's request for leave to comply or in the alternative for clarification or modification of protective order. Leave to intervene and file the motion was granted the following day, June 1, 1978, and the motion was filed that day. A hearing on this motion was had on July 27, 1978.

At both hearings and in their briefs the Defendants in this proceeding whose documents were subpoenaed from Plaintiffs strongly opposed the motions on many grounds.

It should be made clear at the outset that the technical validity of the subpoenae is not at issue. That question has never been squarely put before this Court by either of the two motions above mentioned or by any other party to this proceeding. The sole question is whether Congress can subpoena documents in the hands of a litigant in a Federal Court proceeding from that litigant who would not otherwise have them except for the discovery procedures of the Federal Courts when there has been no showing of extraordinary circumstances.

The Court has reached the conclusion that the motion of the Subcommittees must be denied.

The Federal Courts and the Congress have two different roles under our Constitution. Congress has the power and responsibility to enact legislation under its enumerated powers and the "necessary and proper clause" of the Constitution.2 The Federal Courts have the power to hear all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States.3 Congress has the power to circumscribe the jurisdiction of the various Federal Courts4 and may pass laws which regulate the procedures in the Federal Courts5 but has not the power to interfere in a particular case.

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution states in part: ". . . nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, . . .." Due process must entail the hearing of a case by a Federal Court without the interference of one of the other branches of the Government.6

In the instance before the Court now, the persons whom the Subcommittees have subpoenaed would not have possession of the subpoenaed documents but for the discovery rules of the Federal Courts. Congress by subpoenaing these documents is interfering with the processes of a Federal Court in an individual case.7 Had not a protective order been in force covering the documents, the Court would have entertained a motion for one.

Whether or not Messrs. Freie, Hawkins and Cochrane should have turned over any other documents to the Subcommittees given to them as a result of the discovery processes of this Court has not been presented to this Court and is probably a matter more of form than of substance since the other documents, not being covered by a protective order, have been spread upon the public record in the files of the Clerk of this Court.

For the reasons stated the motion of the Subcommittees for clarification or modification of this Court's protective order is denied. Defendants' attorneys are requested to prepare and submit appropriate form of order.

APPENDIX

THE COURT: Well, gentlemen, I can appreciate Mr. Hawkins and Mr....

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Iowa Beef Processors, Inc. v. Bagley
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 13 Agosto 1979
    ...attempt to subpoena the documents covered by the protective order violated the due process clause. In Re Beef Industry Antitrust Litigation, 457 F.Supp. 210 (N.D.Tex.1978). An appeal from that decision was recently dismissed by the Fifth Circuit, Smith et al. v. National Provisioner et al.,......
  • Colon Berrios v. Hernandez Agosto
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • 7 Septiembre 1983
    ...documents. Each asked the court for leave to comply with the subpoena. One request was rejected in In re Beef Industry Antitrust Litigation, 457 F.Supp. 210 (N.D.Tex.1978), appeal dismissed, 589 F.2d 786 (5th Cir.1979). The district court held that allowing compliance with the subpoena woul......
  • Nat'l Abortion Fed'n v. Ctr. for Med. Progress
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • 6 Octubre 2015
    ...it access to information only received by a party through discovery sanctioned by the Court. But see In re Beef Indus. Antitrust Litig., 457 F. Supp. 210, 211 (N.D. Tex. 1978); In re Beef Indus. Antitrust Litig., 589 F.2d 786, 789 (5th Cir. 1979). All that said, it is not lost on me that de......
  • Iowa Beef Processors, Inc. v. Bagley, 78-1855
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 14 Diciembre 1978
    ...attempt to subpoena the documents covered by the protective order violated the due process clause. In Re Beef Industry Antitrust Litigation, 457 F.Supp. 210 (N.D.Tex.1978). Judge Taylor's decision is currently on appeal to the Fifth Frustrated to this point in its efforts to obtain this mat......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT