United States v. LaJet, Inc.
| Decision Date | 05 August 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 5-76,5-78.,5-76 |
| Citation | 685 F.2d 1378 |
| Parties | The UNITED STATES of America, Petitioner-Appellee, v. LaJET, INC., Respondent-Appellant. LaJET, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
M. Susan Carlson, Dept. of Justice, with whom J. Paul McGrath, C. Max Vassanelli and R. John Seibert, Washington, D. C., of the same agency, and Kenneth J. Mighell, U. S. Atty., Fort Worth, Tex., were on the brief, for defendants-appellees.
Robert M. Montgomery, Jr., Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, and Jack McKay, Kevin I. MacKenzie, Hogan & Hartson, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for respondent-appellant in No. 5-76 and plaintiff-appellant in No. 5-78.
Before BECKER, SPEARS and BROWN, Judges.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied September 7, 1982.
This consolidated appeal by LaJet, Inc., a small independent oil producer, challenges orders entered by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, dismissing LaJet's action against the Department of Energy (DOE), and enforcing a DOE subpoena issued to LaJet. We affirm.
In November of 1978, DOE began an audit of LaJet, which continued until June 15, 1979, when a conference between the two parties was held, but there were no further communications between them until February of 1981. At that time LaJet was notified by DOE that it was in a position to complete the examination of LaJet's records; however, no regulatory violations were alleged. LaJet objected to such an examination and DOE issued a subpoena for the records on April 1, 1981. After LaJet's request for administrative review of the subpoena was denied, it instituted suit against DOE requesting declaratory and injunctive relief from the subpoena.
Seven months later DOE filed a petition to enforce the subpoena. LaJet then filed a motion to consolidate the two actions, and DOE moved to dismiss LaJet's suit on the ground that it was premature.
After a hearing on all pending motions, the district court entered orders 1) denying consolidation of the cases and dismissing LaJet's action against DOE; and 2) upholding the DOE subpoena, but modifying it by limiting the period for review of the documents to sixty (60) days, and ordering DOE to review the records at LaJet's place of business, with DOE paying the expense of reproduction.
LaJet appealed both cases, and by the order of this Court the appeals were consolidated.
The role of a reviewing court in a subpoena enforcement proceeding is limited to determining whether the subpoena was issued for a lawfully authorized purpose, and whether it seeks information relevant to the agency's inquiry. United States v. Pasco Petroleum Co., Inc., 633 F.2d 956, 959 (TECA 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 955, 101 S.Ct. 1698, 68 L.Ed.2d 195 (1981). In its consideration of whether the subpoena is relevant to the agency's inquiry, the court will also consider whether it is sufficiently limited in scope, relevant in purpose, and specific in directive so that compliance will not be unreasonably burdensome. See v. City of Seattle, 387 U.S. 541, 544, 87 S.Ct. 1737, 1740, 18 L.Ed.2d 943 (1967).
LaJet's contention that the subpoena was not issued for a lawfully authorized purpose is without merit. This Court has recognized that Congress conferred broad subpoena authority on DOE, and ". . . has repeatedly upheld enforcement of DOE's and its predecessor agencies' subpoenas seeking similar information relevant to the same lawfully authorized purpose." United States v. Andrus Energy Corporation (consolidated with United States v. Robison Energy, Inc.), 678 F.2d 1081 (Em.App.1982), and the authorities cited therein; and United States v. Lotus Petroleum, Inc., 678 F.2d 1082 (Em.App.1982).
LaJet insists that the subpoena was not lawfully authorized because Executive Order No. 12287, issued on January 28, 1981, decontrolled crude oil and refined petroleum products, and directed the Secretary of Energy to promptly eliminate the reporting and record keeping requirements, except for those that are necessary for emergency planning and energy gathering purposes.1 It argues that when the President ordered that those requirements be eliminated, he "certainly cannot have intended that firms . . . not then the subject of ongoing enforcement proceedings, (that) had previously been audited without the discovery of any regulatory violations, should continue to be subjected to unwarranted `fishing expeditions' . . ." Yet, says LaJet, that is precisely what will happen if DOE prevails in this lawsuit.
LaJet's position is that the Secretary of Energy's regulation 210.1,2 which provides that record keeping requirements in effect on January 27, 1981, will remain in effect for all transactions prior to February 1, 1981, conflicts with Executive Order 12287, and is, therefore, invalid.
DOE counters that the records required to be kept are necessary to determine compliance with price and allocation regulations authorized by the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973, 15 U.S.C. § 751 et seq., as amended; and that while § 760g of the Act authorized the President to decontrol crude oil and refined petroleum products, prior to September 30, 1981, "it in no way abrogated the legislative mandate that the expiration of this authority shall not affect Administrative or Civil Actions, whether or not pending, which are based upon acts committed prior to such expiration."3 Since it finds the provisions of Section 2 of the Executive Order consistent with that view, DOE perceives no conflict between the Executive Order and regulation 210.1.
In our opinion, the Executive Order did not abolish DOE's authority to continue the audit of LaJet, begun more than two years earlier, even though there had been a lapse of eighteen months, and no regulatory violations had been discovered. Nor did the Executive Order put an end to LaJet's obligation as an oil producer to maintain records required during the regulatory period.4 Realistically, the most practical way to determine whether violations have occurred is by an examination of the records,5 and we find nothing in § 760g, Executive Order 12287, or § 210.1 to indicate any intention to grant amnesty for any possible violations occurring prior to the effective date of the Executive Order.
The DOE subpoena seeks documents and records relating to transactions involving crude oil. The information sought is clearly relevant to the agency's inquiry into LaJet's compliance with the regulations.
LaJet argues that the scope of the subpoena is unduly broad and unreasonably burdensome. The record demonstrates that the district court considered this argument and modified the subpoena.6 As modified, the subpoena seeks "similar information relevant to the same lawfully authorized purpose" to those before this Court in United States v. Robison Energy, Inc., (consolidated with United States v. Andrus Energy Corp.), 678 F.2d 1081 (Em.App.1982), and the authorities cited therein.7
LaJet's asserts that the district court was in error in dismissing counts one through four of its actions against DOE for lack of "ripeness". "In determining whether a challenge to an administrative regulation is ripe for review, a twofold inquiry must be made: first to determine whether the issues tendered are appropriate for judicial resolution, and second to assess the hardship of parties if judicial relief is denied at that stage." Toilet Goods Association, Inc. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 158, 162, 87 S.Ct. 1520, 1523, 18 L.Ed.2d 697 (1967); Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 149, 87 S.Ct. 1507, 1515, 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967); Marathon Oil Company v. U. S. Department of Energy, 642 F.2d 436, 438 (Em.App.1981).
Counts one and two of LaJet's action against DOE involved challenges to the recordkeeping regulation; count three alleged harassment of LaJet by DOE; and count four alleged that the audit was barred by laches. Since any complaint as to the validity of the audit itself may be raised in any administrative enforcement action resulting from the audit, or may be considered in any district court review of a final agency determination of a regulatory violation, the district court did not err in dismissing the four counts without prejudice to LaJet's right to pursue the matter further "after entry of some final order by the Department of Energy". See Reisman v. Caplin, 375 U.S. 440, 84 S.Ct. 508, 11 L.Ed.2d 459 (1964); Wearly v. Federal Trade Commission, 616 F.2d 662 (3rd Cir. 1980); American Motors v. Federal Trade Commission, 601 F.2d 1329 (6th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 941, 100 S.Ct. 294, 62 L.Ed.2d 307 (1979); ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Texas Energy Petroleum Corp.
...U.S. v. Andrus Energy Corp., 678 F.2d 1081 (Em. App.1982); U.S. v. Lotus Petroleum, 678 F.2d 1082 (Em.App.1982); U.S. v. LaJet, 685 F.2d 1378 (Em.App.1982); U.S. v. Ted True, Inc., 687 F.2d 491 (Em.App.1982); U.S. v. Juren, 687 F.2d 493 (Em.App.1982); Apache Oil Co., Inc. v. U.S., 694 F.2d ......
-
U.S. v. Uni Oil, Inc.
...v. United States, 688 F.2d 797 (Em.App.1982) (similar case also involving Exec.Order 12,287 and civil liability); United States v. LaJet, Inc., 685 F.2d 1378 (Em.App.1982) (same); United States v. Resnick, 455 F.2d 1127, 1133-34 (5th Cir.1972) (discussed in text, infra ), cert. denied, 414 ......
-
United States v. Thriftyman, Inc.
...to grant amnesty for any possible violations occurring prior to the effective date of the Executive Order." United States v. LaJet, Inc., 685 F.2d 1378 at 1381 (Em.App.1982) which discussed the authority of the DOE to issue subpoenas after the effective date of Executive Order 12287. In thi......
-
United States v. RFB Petroleum, Inc., 5-90.
...Inc. v. United States, 694 F.2d 714 (Em.App.1982), United States v. Ted True, Inc., 687 F.2d 491 (Em.App.1982), United States v. LaJet, Inc., 685 F.2d 1378 (Em.App.1982), United States v. Lotus Petroleum, Inc., 678 F.2d 1082 "`Basically, the power to compel the production of the records of ......