purposes of the relevant inquiry in California

1989Instead, said the court, the investigation need only be for "a lawfully authorized purpose, within the power of [the legislative body] to command." ( 327 U.S. at p. 209 [ 90 L.Ed. at p. 630 ], italics added.) In addition, the requirement of "`probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation,' literally applicable in the case of a warrant," is satisfied as long as the subpenaed documents are "relevant" to the inquiry. ( Ibid., italics added.) "Beyond this the requirement of reasonableness, including particularity in `describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized,'

1989Instead, said the court, the investigation need only be for "a lawfully authorized purpose, within the power of [the legislative body] to command." ( 327 U.S. at p. 209 [ 90 L.Ed. at p. 630 ], italics added.) In addition, the requirement of "`probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation,' literally applicable in the case of a warrant," is satisfied as long as the subpenaed documents are "relevant" to the inquiry. ( Ibid., italics added.) "Beyond this the requirement of reasonableness, including particularity in `describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized,'

2025It is unnecessary for us to reach this argument in light of our conclusion that the doctrine of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction does not apply, and in any event, the Attorney General did not raise the argument in the trial court or even on appeal until oral argument. 8 subject to production and has limited its requests in both scope and time.” (State Water Resources Control Bd. v. Baldwin & Sons, Inc., supra, 45 Cal.App.5th at p. 57; Craib v. Bulmash, supra, 49 Cal.3d 475, 482 [documents to be produced must be “adequate, but not excessive, for the purposes of the relevant inquiry”]; Californ

1991Instead, said the court, the investigation need only be for ‘a lawfully authorized purpose, within the power of [the legislative body] to command.’ In addition, the requirement of ‘’’probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation,” literally applicable in the case of a warrant,’ is satisfied as long as the subpenaed documents are ‘relevant’ to the inquiry. ‘Beyond this the requirement of reasonableness, including particularity in “describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized,” also literally applicable to warrants, comes down to specification of the documents t

1993Co. v. Walling (1946) 327 U.S. 186, 209 [ 90 L.Ed. 614, 629-630 , 66 S.Ct. 494 , 166 A.L.R. 531 ].) The documents demanded must be relevant and “ ‘adequate, but not excessive, for the purposes of the relevant inquiry.’ ” (Ibid.) Section 227.3 provides that employees must receive vested vacation pay upon separation from employment. 2 “The right to a paid vacation, when offered in an employer’s policy or contract of employment, constitutes deferred wages for services rendered. ... [A] proportionate right to a paid vacation ‘vests’ as the labor is rendered.

1993Co. v. Walling (1946) 327 U.S. 186, 209 [ 90 L.Ed. 614, 629-630 , 66 S.Ct. 494 , 166 A.L.R. 531 ].) The documents demanded must be relevant and “ ‘adequate, but not excessive, for the purposes of the relevant inquiry.’ ” (Ibid.) Section 227.3 provides that employees must receive vested vacation pay upon separation from employment. 2 “The right to a paid vacation, when offered in an employer’s policy or contract of employment, constitutes deferred wages for services rendered. ... [A] proportionate right to a paid vacation ‘vests’ as the labor is rendered.

2025It is unnecessary for us to reach this argument in light of our conclusion that the doctrine of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction does not apply, and in any event, the Attorney General did not raise the argument in the trial court or even on appeal until oral argument. 8 subject to production and has limited its requests in both scope and time.” (State Water Resources Control Bd. v. Baldwin & Sons, Inc., supra, 45 Cal.App.5th at p. 57; Craib v. Bulmash, supra, 49 Cal.3d 475, 482 [documents to be produced must be “adequate, but not excessive, for the purposes of the relevant inquiry”]; Californ

2025It is unnecessary for us to reach this argument in light of our conclusion that the doctrine of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction does not apply, and in any event, the Attorney General did not raise the argument in the trial court or even on appeal until oral argument. 8 subject to production and has limited its requests in both scope and time.” (State Water Resources Control Bd. v. Baldwin & Sons, Inc., supra, 45 Cal.App.5th at p. 57; Craib v. Bulmash, supra, 49 Cal.3d 475, 482 [documents to be produced must be “adequate, but not excessive, for the purposes of the relevant inquiry”]; Californ

2025(State Water Resources Control Bd., supra, at p. 57.) The hearing on the order to show cause pursuant to section 11188, however, is not “a hearing in the nature of a motion to quash.” (Fielder v. Berkeley Properties Co. (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 30, 40 (Fielder).) The party challenging the subpoena is not entitled to “dispute and contradict the factual matters contained in the declarations supportive of the subpoenas.” (Ibid.) A. The Investigation On appeal, the Attorney General characterizes the investigation as commencing in 2023 after the office received credible information that millions of dol

2000(D.C.Cir.1976) 409 F.Supp. 297, 305 ["[I]n deciding the [question of] pertinency, the specific inquiries need only be reasonably related to the major subject matter area under investigation."].) The insurers assert that the subpoenas "sweep more broadly than would be necessary for any conceivable legislative investigation," and claim that "[information regarding reinsurance, insurance applications, and the manner in which [the insurers] calculated the rates and premiums of the policies are entirely irrelevant" to the city's legislative functions of appropriation and lawmaking.

2000The specific inquiries set out in the subpoenas must be pertinent to the subject matter of the investigation. ( Wilkinson v. United States, supra, 365 U.S. 399, 413 , 81 S.Ct. 567 ; Millan, supra, 14 Cal. App.4th at p. 481 , 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 198 ["documents demanded must be relevant and `"adequate, but not excessive, for the purposes of the relevant inquiry"'" (italics omitted)]; Ashland Oil, Inc. v. F.T.C.

2000The specific inquiries set out in the subpoenas must be pertinent to the subject matter of the investigation. ( Wilkinson v. United States, supra, 365 U.S. 399, 413 , 81 S.Ct. 567 ; Millan, supra, 14 Cal. App.4th at p. 481 , 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 198 ["documents demanded must be relevant and `"adequate, but not excessive, for the purposes of the relevant inquiry"'" (italics omitted)]; Ashland Oil, Inc. v. F.T.C.

2000The specific inquiries set out in the subpoenas must be pertinent to the subject matter of the investigation. ( Wilkinson v. United States, supra, 365 U.S. 399, 413 , 81 S.Ct. 567 ; Millan, supra, 14 Cal. App.4th at p. 481 , 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 198 ["documents demanded must be relevant and `"adequate, but not excessive, for the purposes of the relevant inquiry"'" (italics omitted)]; Ashland Oil, Inc. v. F.T.C.

2000The specific inquiries set out in the subpoenas must be pertinent to the subject matter of the investigation. ( Wilkinson v. United States, supra, 365 U.S. 399, 413 , 81 S.Ct. 567 ; Millan, supra, 14 Cal. App.4th at p. 481 , 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 198 ["documents demanded must be relevant and `"adequate, but not excessive, for the purposes of the relevant inquiry"'" (italics omitted)]; Ashland Oil, Inc. v. F.T.C.

1991(See v. City of Seattle (1967) 387 U.S. 541, 544-545 [ 18 L.Ed.2d 943, 946-947 , 87 S.Ct. 1737 ].) In See the high court stressed that “while the demand to inspect may be issued by the agency, in the form of an administrative subpoena, it may not be made and enforced by the inspector in the field, and the subpoenaed party may obtain judicial review of the reasonableness of the demand prior to suffering penalties for refusing to comply. [U] It is these rather minimal limitations on administrative action which we think are constitutionally required in the case of investigative entry upon commerc

1989(See, e.g., California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz (1974) 416 U.S. 21, 66-67 [ 39 L.Ed.2d 812, 843-844 , 94 S.Ct. 1494 ] [upholding reasonableness of Secretary of Treasury regulations requiring banks to report certain customer transactions]; United States v. Powell (1964) 379 U.S. 48, 57 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 112, 119 , 85 S.Ct. 248 ] [holding Internal Revenue Service summons for records relating to company tax returns need not be supported by probable cause to suspect fraud]; McPhaul v. United States (1960) 364 U.S. 372, 382-383 [ 5 L.Ed.2d 136, 144 , 81 S.Ct. 138 ] [finding no overbreadth in congressiona

1989(See, e.g., California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz (1974) 416 U.S. 21, 66-67 [ 39 L.Ed.2d 812, 843-844 , 94 S.Ct. 1494 ] [upholding reasonableness of Secretary of Treasury regulations requiring banks to report certain customer transactions]; United States v. Powell (1964) 379 U.S. 48, 57 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 112, 119 , 85 S.Ct. 248 ] [holding Internal Revenue Service summons for records relating to company tax returns need not be supported by probable cause to suspect fraud]; McPhaul v. United States (1960) 364 U.S. 372, 382-383 [ 5 L.Ed.2d 136, 144 , 81 S.Ct. 138 ] [finding no overbreadth in congressiona

1989(See, e.g., California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz (1974) 416 U.S. 21, 66-67 [ 39 L.Ed.2d 812, 843-844 , 94 S.Ct. 1494 ] [upholding reasonableness of Secretary of Treasury regulations requiring banks to report certain customer transactions]; United States v. Powell (1964) 379 U.S. 48, 57 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 112, 119 , 85 S.Ct. 248 ] [holding Internal Revenue Service summons for records relating to company tax returns need not be supported by probable cause to suspect fraud]; McPhaul v. United States (1960) 364 U.S. 372, 382-383 [ 5 L.Ed.2d 136, 144 , 81 S.Ct. 138 ] [finding no overbreadth in congressiona

1989(See, e.g., California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz (1974) 416 U.S. 21, 66-67 [ 39 L.Ed.2d 812, 843-844 , 94 S.Ct. 1494 ] [upholding reasonableness of Secretary of Treasury regulations requiring banks to report certain customer transactions]; United States v. Powell (1964) 379 U.S. 48, 57 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 112, 119 , 85 S.Ct. 248 ] [holding Internal Revenue Service summons for records relating to company tax returns need not be supported by probable cause to suspect fraud]; McPhaul v. United States (1960) 364 U.S. 372, 382-383 [ 5 L.Ed.2d 136, 144 , 81 S.Ct. 138 ] [finding no overbreadth in congressiona

1989(See, e.g., California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz (1974) 416 U.S. 21, 66-67 [ 39 L.Ed.2d 812, 843-844 , 94 S.Ct. 1494 ] [upholding reasonableness of Secretary of Treasury regulations requiring banks to report certain customer transactions]; United States v. Powell (1964) 379 U.S. 48, 57 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 112, 119 , 85 S.Ct. 248 ] [holding Internal Revenue Service summons for records relating to company tax returns need not be supported by probable cause to suspect fraud]; McPhaul v. United States (1960) 364 U.S. 372, 382-383 [ 5 L.Ed.2d 136, 144 , 81 S.Ct. 138 ] [finding no overbreadth in congressiona

1989(See, e.g., California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz (1974) 416 U.S. 21, 66-67 [ 39 L.Ed.2d 812, 843-844 , 94 S.Ct. 1494 ] [upholding reasonableness of Secretary of Treasury regulations requiring banks to report certain customer transactions]; United States v. Powell (1964) 379 U.S. 48, 57 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 112, 119 , 85 S.Ct. 248 ] [holding Internal Revenue Service summons for records relating to company tax returns need not be supported by probable cause to suspect fraud]; McPhaul v. United States (1960) 364 U.S. 372, 382-383 [ 5 L.Ed.2d 136, 144 , 81 S.Ct. 138 ] [finding no overbreadth in congressiona

1989(See, e.g., California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz (1974) 416 U.S. 21, 66-67 [ 39 L.Ed.2d 812, 843-844 , 94 S.Ct. 1494 ] [upholding reasonableness of Secretary of Treasury regulations requiring banks to report certain customer transactions]; United States v. Powell (1964) 379 U.S. 48, 57 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 112, 119 , 85 S.Ct. 248 ] [holding Internal Revenue Service summons for records relating to company tax returns need not be supported by probable cause to suspect fraud]; McPhaul v. United States (1960) 364 U.S. 372, 382-383 [ 5 L.Ed.2d 136, 144 , 81 S.Ct. 138 ] [finding no overbreadth in congressiona

1989(See, e.g., California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz (1974) 416 U.S. 21, 66-67 [ 39 L.Ed.2d 812, 843-844 , 94 S.Ct. 1494 ] [upholding reasonableness of Secretary of Treasury regulations requiring banks to report certain customer transactions]; United States v. Powell (1964) 379 U.S. 48, 57 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 112, 119 , 85 S.Ct. 248 ] [holding Internal Revenue Service summons for records relating to company tax returns need not be supported by probable cause to suspect fraud]; McPhaul v. United States (1960) 364 U.S. 372, 382-383 [ 5 L.Ed.2d 136, 144 , 81 S.Ct. 138 ] [finding no overbreadth in congressiona