## Facts

- The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued administrative complaints alleging that Adams Dairy entities and certain grocery chains conspired in the sale and distribution of dairy products in the Kansas City area, constituting unfair methods of competition under § 5 of the FTC Act.
- During the FTC administrative proceedings, a hearing examiner issued six subpoenas ad testificandum et duces tecum to Adams Dairy Company, Adams Dairy, Inc., and two Adams principals, seeking extensive business records.
- The Adams respondents moved to quash the subpoenas, asserting the requests were irrelevant, overly broad, and unduly burdensome, and they refused to comply after the examiner and the Commission declined to grant relief.
- The FTC petitioned the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri to enforce the subpoenas.
- The district court enforced the subpoenas only in part, denying enforcement of various specifications and narrowing others.
- The FTC appealed the limitations; the Adams respondents cross-appealed, challenging enforcement and the scope of the requests.

## Issues

1. What standard governs judicial enforcement of FTC administrative subpoenas issued in a pending § 5 proceeding.
2. Whether the subpoena specifications sought information reasonably relevant to the FTC’s lawful investigation, even if not limited to specific transactions alleged in the complaints.
3. Whether, and to what extent, the district court properly narrowed or denied enforcement based on overbreadth, indefiniteness, or undue burden.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s partial enforcement order.
- The court held that FTC subpoenas should be enforced when the inquiry is within the agency’s authority, the demand is sufficiently definite, and the materials sought are reasonably relevant to the investigation.
- The court concluded that several district-court limitations were too restrictive and directed broader enforcement of certain subpoena specifications.
- The court also upheld some limitations where specifications were genuinely overbroad or imposed an unreasonable burden relative to their connection to the investigation.
- The court rejected the argument that the FTC acted improperly by seeking similar information from other sources during the enforcement dispute.

## Legal Principles

- A federal court’s role in enforcing an administrative subpoena is limited to determining lawful purpose, reasonable relevance, and reasonable specificity and burden; it does not adjudicate the merits of the agency’s underlying allegations.
- “Relevance” in an agency investigation is construed liberally; the agency may obtain information that can reveal the pattern, scope, or context of the conduct under investigation and is not confined to evidence that would be admissible at trial.
- A subpoena is not invalid merely because it is broad or compliance is inconvenient; the resisting party must show that demands are indefinite, plainly irrelevant, or oppressive.
- Courts may trim subpoena specifications to prevent enforcement of requests that are unreasonably overbroad in time or subject matter, or that impose a disproportionate compliance burden.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit applied a deferential enforcement standard to FTC subpoenas issued in a pending § 5 proceeding, expanding enforcement beyond the district court’s order where the requests were reasonably relevant, while preserving targeted limits to prevent truly excessive or oppressive demands.


Adams v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 296 F.2d 861 (8th Cir. 1961)