## Facts

- A federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia investigated alleged interstate transportation of obscene materials.
- The grand jury issued subpoenas duces tecum to three related, commonly owned New York corporations distributing adult magazines and videotapes: Model Magazine Distributors, Inc., R. Enterprises, Inc., and MFR Court Street Books, Inc.
- The subpoenas sought corporate books and records from all three companies and, as to Model, copies of videotapes shipped to retailers in the Eastern District of Virginia.
- The corporations moved to quash, arguing the subpoenas were irrelevant to the investigation and would burden First Amendment-protected expression.
- The district court denied the motions to quash; after noncompliance, it held the corporations in contempt.
- The Fourth Circuit quashed the subpoenas as to R. Enterprises and MFR, applying a trial-subpoena standard requiring relevancy, admissibility, and specificity.
- The Supreme Court granted review to determine the proper standard for quashing grand jury subpoenas under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c).

## Issues

1. Whether the trial-subpoena standard requiring relevancy, admissibility, and specificity governs subpoenas duces tecum issued by a grand jury.
2. Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c), what showing is required to quash a grand jury subpoena as “unreasonable or oppressive.”
3. Whether, and to what extent, First Amendment concerns alter the Rule 17(c) analysis for subpoenas seeking sexually explicit materials or related records.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Fourth Circuit and remanded.
- The Court held that the trial-subpoena standard does not apply to grand jury subpoenas.
- Grand jury subpoenas are presumed reasonable, and the burden to show unreasonableness rests on the subpoenaed party.
- A subpoena should be quashed only if the recipient shows there is no reasonable possibility that the category of materials sought will produce information relevant to the general subject of the grand jury’s investigation.
- The Court declined to resolve the First Amendment claims in detail, explaining that any protection is addressed within Rule 17(c)’s reasonableness inquiry.

## Legal Principles

- The grand jury’s investigatory function is broad and is not constrained by the technical evidentiary and procedural rules applicable at trial.
- The *United States v. Nixon* standard (relevancy, admissibility, specificity) is inapplicable to grand jury subpoenas.
- Under Rule 17(c), a grand jury subpoena is presumptively reasonable; the recipient must rebut that presumption.
- A motion to quash requires a showing that there is no reasonable possibility the requested category of materials will yield information relevant to the general subject of the investigation.
- The government is not required to justify a grand jury subpoena by presenting evidence sufficient to establish probable cause.
- Courts may require the government to identify the general subject matter of the investigation to assess reasonableness, but in a manner that preserves grand jury secrecy.

## Conclusion

The Court held that grand jury subpoenas are enforced under Rule 17(c)’s reasonableness standard, not the trial-focused *Nixon* test, and that a subpoena is quashed only when the recipient shows no reasonable possibility of relevance to the investigation’s general subject.


United States v. R. Enters., Inc., 498 U.S. 292 (1991)