United States v. Ryan

Background

In March 1968 a man was served with a subpoena to produce before a federal grand jury all books, records, and documents of five named companies doing business in Kenya. He moved to quash the subpoena. The District Court denied the motion and ordered him to try to obtain permission from Kenya’s Registrar of Companies to remove certain records, and if permission were denied to make those records available for inspection in Kenya. The Court of Appeals treated that order as a mandatory injunction, held it appealable, and reversed the District Court.

Reasoning

The core question was whether a person may immediately appeal a district court’s denial of a motion to quash a subpoena. The Court relied on prior decisions (including Cobbledick) and held that ordinarily a person receiving a subpoena must either comply or refuse and, if cited for contempt, then obtain full appellate review. The Court rejected the argument that the need to comply created an exception here, explaining that immediate review is allowed only when denial of review would make later review impossible (for example, returned property or a third party custodian situation like Perlman). Because the respondent could refuse to comply and later seek review, immediate appeal was not permitted.

Real world impact

The decision means people served with subpoenas lack a general right to a quick appeal of a denial to quash; they must choose to comply or face possible contempt and later review. The District Court’s instruction to seek Kenyan permission did not convert its ruling into an appealable injunction and merely described what efforts would satisfy compliance.