C.D.Cal.: Eastman’s claim 1/6 House Committee’s subpoena is without authority or overbroad is denied

John Eastman’s claims against the Jan. 6 House Committee subpoena for records fail on his claim for injunctive relief. (Attorney-client privilege will be taken up later.) Eastman v. Thompson, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25546 (C.D.Cal. Jan. 25, 2022). On the Fourth Amendment claim:

Dr. Eastman asserts that the subpoena to Chapman violates his Fourth Amendment rights because it is “so broad and indefinite as to exceed the lawfully authorized purpose” of the Select Committee. Compl. ¶ 98.

A subpoena is not impermissibly broad if it calls for the production of documents tethered to “the nature, purposes and scope” of the congressional inquiry. Oklahoma Press Pub. Co. v. Walling, 327 U.S. 186, 209, 66 S. Ct. 494, 90 L. Ed. 614 (1946). Where the committee’s area of inquiry is relatively broad, “the permissible scope of materials that could reasonably be sought [is] necessarily equally broad.” McPhaul v. United States, 364 U.S. 372, 382, 81 S. Ct. 138, 5 L. Ed. 2d 136 (1960).

The documents and communications sought are directly within the scope of the Select Committee’s legislative purpose of investigating the January 6 attack on the Capitol. The subpoena seeks documents only between the election on November 3, 2020, and the inauguration on January 20, 2021. As Dr. Eastman notes, the 2020 election was perceived by some as “tainted by fraud, disregard of state election law, [and] misconduct by election officials.” Compl. ¶ 1. Additionally, the Select Committee had “credible evidence” that during December 2020 and January 2021 Dr. Eastman encouraged the Vice President and other legislators to reject or delay legitimate election results. Cover Letter at 1. The Committee’s purpose is expansive—it covers both “the facts and circumstances” surrounding the attack on the Capitol and the “influencing factors that fomented such an attack.” H.R. Res. § 503(3)(1). It is reasonable to infer that public perception of the election and Dr. Eastman’s attempts to invalidate the results constituted “influencing factor[s]” for some of those who stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021.

Chapman and the Select Committee also made efforts to narrow the scope of production under the subpoena after it was issued. At the hearing, the Select Committee explained that the subpoena initially produced nearly 30,000 documents for review. The Select Committee then worked with Chapman to devise search terms to further limit the results. By doing so Chapman was able to cut the search results by over a third, leaving just under 19,000 documents. Resp. at 5. Although the number of documents produced is substantial, the volume is more likely a reflection of the extent of relevant communications rather than of an impermissibly broad inquiry. See Eastland, 421 U.S. at 509 (“Nor is the legitimacy of a congressional inquiry to be defined by what it produces. The very nature of the investigative function—like any research—is that it takes the searchers up some ‘blind alleys’ and into nonproductive enterprises. To be a valid legislative inquiry there need be no predictable end result.”).

The Court does not find the subpoena to be overbroad or indefinite given its context. As such, the Court DENIES Dr. Eastman’s claims with respect to the Fourth Amendment.

This entry was posted in Subpoenas / Nat'l Security Letters. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.