In re Ryan, 23343.

• Decision Date: 19 May 1970
• Docket Number: No. 23343.,23343.
• Citation: 430 F.2d 658
• Parties: In the Matter of the Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum of Raymond J. RYAN, Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

430 F.2d 658 (1970)

In the Matter of the Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum of Raymond J. RYAN, Appellant.

No. 23343.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Decided May 19, 1970.

Rehearing Denied July 29, 1970.

Herbert J. Miller, Jr. (argued), John Joseph Cassidy, Raymond G. Larroca, of Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin, Washington, D. C., Wm. H. Orrick, Jr., Robt. J. Gloistein, of Orrick, Dahlquist, Herrington & Suitcliffe, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.

Harold T. Joyce (argued), Wm. Matthew Byrne, U. S. Atty., Phillip R. Michael, Special U. S. Atty., Will Wilson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Criminal Division, Los Angeles, Cal., Edward T. Joyce, Philip R. Michael, Gerald E. McDowell, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before JERTBERG, MERRILL, and ELY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is from an Order of the District Court denying appellant's motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum, ordering him to produce most of the documents called for by the subpoena and requiring affirmative action in relation to other documents. Ryan presents several important contentions in this court, including persuasive arguments grounded in constitutional law. We have concluded that we need not resolve all of these issues, having finally become convinced that the Order is vague and overly broad.

Ryan, an American citizen, has been under investigation for tax evasion for several years. The aspect of the investigation with which we are dealing concerns several African businesses of which Ryan is apparently the principal shareholder. He was subpoenaed by the Grand Jury of the Central District of California and ordered to bring with him "all books, records, papers, and documents" pertaining to five different companies, all located in Kenya. Ryan moved to quash the subpoena on the grounds, among others, that it was overly broad, that it was served improperly, and that full compliance with it would require him to violate Kenya law. The District Court denied the motion to quash and entered the Order from which Ryan appeals.

The Government contends that we have no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, arguing that the Order is nothing more than an interlocutory order in a criminal proceeding. Several cases are cited in support of this contention. Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U.S. 323, 60 S.Ct. 540, 84 L.Ed. 783 (1940); In re Grand Jury Investigation, 318 F.2d 533 (2d Cir. 1963); In re Buckey, 395 F.2d 385 (6th Cir. 1968). In none of the cases cited, however, had the District Court ordered anything other than compliance with the subpoena. In contrast, the District Court here modified the subpoena with respect to certain documents and directed the appellant to undertake steps in a foreign country to have those documents released by other persons for transportation to this country or for inspection in Kenya by United States agents. In directing that affirmative action be taken in another country, the District Court did more than deny a motion to quash; it in effect granted a mandatory injunction which, given full effect, would require action by officials of the Kenyan Government. See International Longshoremen's Ass'n v. Philadelphia Marine Trade Ass'n, 389 U.S. 64, 88 S.Ct. 201, 19 L.Ed.2d 236 (1968). We therefore conclude, in the particular circumstances of this case, that we should hold the Order to be...