D.D.C.: Subpoena to govt contractor wasn’t too burdensome

As narrowed by the parties, the subpoena to Office Depot as a government contractor wasn’t too burdensome. United States v. Office Depot, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197661 (D.D.C. Oct. 31, 2024)*:

The Fourth Amendment is a tricky thing for government contractors. On one hand, it protects businesses from onerous government searches. Morton Salt. Co. v. United States, 338 U.S. 632, 652 (1950). But on the other, companies doing business with Uncle Sam can find themselves enduring internal probes they would never face from another private party. See Zap v. United States, 328 U.S. 624, 628 (1946), vacated on other grounds, 330 U.S. 800 (1947). This case presents just such a situation. The U.S. Postal Service Inspector General’s Office sent Office Depot a subpoena for voluminous business documents to verify the company’s compliance with the parties’ three-year contract. Office Depot now resists what it calls “burdensome” production. …

Negotiation has narrowed the subpoena’s scope. Id. Now, each party argues that its new, more modest suggestion meets the contract’s requirements and that the other party’s demand flouts their agreement. Neither is fully right. The Court thus will modify the terms of the subpoena according to its own judgment about the contract’s terms. In this modified form, USPS’s petition to enforce the subpoena will be granted in part and denied in part.

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

Comments are closed.