C.F.R. » Title 16 » CHAPTER I—FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION › SUBCHAPTER A—ORGANIZATION, PROCEDURES AND RULES OF PRACTICE › PART 3—RULES OF PRACTICE FOR ADJUDICATIVE PROCEEDINGS › Subpart D—Discovery; Compulsory Process

16 C.F.R. § 3.34

Subpoenas

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Subpoenas ad testificandum. Counsel for a party may sign and issue a subpoena, on a form provided by the Secretary, requiring a person to appear and give testimony at the taking of a deposition to a party requesting such subpoena or to attend and give testimony at an adjudicative hearing.

(b) Subpoenas duces tecum; subpoenas to permit inspection of premises. Counsel for a party may sign and issue a subpoena, on a form provided by the Secretary, commanding a person to produce and permit inspection and copying of designated books, documents, or tangible things, or commanding a person to permit inspection of premises, at a time and place therein specified. The subpoena shall specify with reasonable particularity the material to be produced. The person commanded by the subpoena need not appear in person at the place of production or inspection unless commanded to appear for a deposition or hearing pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section. As used herein, the term “documents” includes written materials, electronically stored information, and tangible things. A subpoena duces tecum may be used by any party for purposes of discovery, for obtaining documents for use in evidence, or for both purposes, and shall specify with reasonable particularity the materials to be produced.

(c) Motions to quash; limitation on subpoenas. Any motion by the subject of a subpoena to limit or quash the subpoena shall be filed within the earlier of 10 days after service thereof or the time for compliance therewith. Such motions shall set forth all assertions of privilege or other factual and legal objections to the subpoena, including all appropriate arguments, affidavits and other supporting documentation, and shall include the statement required by § 3.22(g). Nothing in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section authorizes the issuance of subpoenas except in accordance with §§ 3.31(c)(2) and 3.36.

[74 FR 1828, Jan. 13, 2009]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1970–2021 · leading case: Fed. Trade Comm'n v. J. E. Lonning, President, & Kellogg Co., a Corp., 539 F.2d 202 (D.C. Cir. 1976).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. J. E. Lonning, President, & Kellogg Co., a Corp., 539 F.2d 202 (D.C. Cir. 1976). · cites it 2× “34 of the Commission’s *205 Rules of Practice, 16 C.F.R. § 3.34 , 6 complaint counsel for the FTC applied to the Administrative Law Judge for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum against the four firms, including Kellogg.”
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Anderson, 442 F. Supp. 1118 (D.D.C. 1977). · cites it 3× “34(b), 16 C.F.R. § 3.34 (b) (1977). A reading of the rule indicates that it contains a general relevancy requirement for all material sought and a restriction that material sought through adjudicative discovery “constitute or contain evidence relevant to the subject matter…”
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Compagnie De Saint-Gobain-Pont-A-Mousson, 636 F.2d 1300 (D.C. Cir. 1980). “Unlike “litigative” subpoenas issued in adjudicative agency proceedings, see 16 C.F.R. § 3.34 (1978), investigatory subpoenas are issued under Part 2 of the FTC Rules of Practice, id.”
La Petite Auberge, Inc. v. Rhode Island Comm'n for Human Rights, 419 A.2d 274 (R.I. 1980). “§ 49 (1976), to authorize the subpoena of persons for the taking of their depositions). Ill L’Auberge argues that the commission acted improperly when it subpoenaed L’Au-berge’s president after it had filed a complaint against L’Auberge.”
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Atl. Richfield Co., 567 F.2d 96 (D.C. Cir. 1977). “At some time in the past there were allegations that the Antitrust Division was utilizing criminal grand jury investigations, conducted subsequent to the initiation of a civil complaint against a party, to gather evidence for use in the civil case.”
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Ralph L. Browning, Exec. Vice President of Lehigh Portland Cement Co., 435 F.2d 96 (D.C. Cir. 1970). “(1) Application for issuance of a subpoena requiring a person to appear and depose or testify and to produce specified documents, papers, books, or other physical exhibits at the taking of a deposition, or at a prehearing conference, or at an adjudicative hearing ' shall be made…”
Atl. Richfield Co. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 398 F. Supp. 1 (S.D. Tex. 1975). “§ 555 (d), and that the procedural rules pertinent to adjudicative proceedings, especially 16 C.F.R. § 3.34 (subpoenas duces tecum to issue during adjudicative proceeding only on showing of good cause) and § 4.”
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Anderson, 631 F.2d 741 (D.C. Cir. 1979). “Texaco contends that the Commission’s rules permit post complaint discovery of only those documents that “constitute or contain” relevant evidence.”
Stand. Oil Co. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 475 F. Supp. 1261 (N.D. Ind. 1979). “16 C.F.R. § 3.34 . See generally: Bennett, Post-Corn- *1265 plaint Discovery in Administrative Proceedings: The FTC as a Case Study, 75 Duke L.”
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Platinum Plus Printing, LLC (D.D.C. 2021). · cites it 2× “The subpoena was issued pursuant to 16 C.F.R. § 3.34 , which authorizes “[c]ounsel for a party” to an ongoing administrative proceeding to “sign and issue a subpoena, on a form provided by the Secretary, commanding a person to produce and permit inspection and copying of…”
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Page, 378 F. Supp. 1052 (N.D. Ga. 1974). “34 of the FTC Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 3.34, both sides are en *1054 titled to apply for subpoenas ad testificandum and duces tecum to the Administrative Law Judge.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.