Insights

New York Appellate Court Curtails NY AG Investigatory Subpoena on Constitutional Grounds

New York Appellate Court Curtails NY AG Investigatory Subpoena on Constitutional Grounds

On June 21, 2017, a New York appellate court curtailed on constitutional grounds an investigative subpoena issued by the New York Attorney General. In the Matter of Evergreen Assoc., Inc., 54 N.Y.S.2d. 135 (App. Div. 2017). Finding that the Attorney General's subpoena was not sufficiently tailored to avoid trampling Evergreen's and its staff members' First Amendment freedom of association, the Appellate Division modified the trial court's Order denying Evergreen's motion for a protective order and quashed the subpoena.

The Attorney General issued its subpoena in furtherance of its investigation concerning whether Evergreen, a nonprofit operator of unplanned pregnancy centers, violated New York statutes prohibiting the unauthorized practice of medicine. Using New York's test for determining the validity of investigatory subpoenas, the Appellate Division determined that certain requests in the Attorney General's subpoena should be quashed in their entirety as infringing Evergreen's First Amendment rights. As to other requests, the Appellate Division granted Evergreen's motion to the extent of directing Evergreen to produce any responsive documents to the trial court for in camera review to determine which were sufficiently related to the subject of the Attorney General's investigation.

Importance of the Decision

Evergreen appears to be the first reported decision by a New York court sustaining on constitutional grounds a motion to quash filed by the recipient of an Attorney General's investigative subpoena. It serves as a reminder that however broad the authority of the Attorney General, it is, as we have previously written, not limitless. Individuals and entities receiving investigative demands should consider a motion to quash on substantive or procedural grounds, including raising constitutional challenges if warranted, should efforts to negotiate appropriately tailored requests prove unsuccessful. Although the New York procedural rules specify only that motions to quash be made "promptly," such a motion should generally be filed on or before the deadline for compliance with a subpoena.

Lawyer Contacts

For further information, please contact your principal Firm representative or one of the lawyers listed below. General email messages may be sent using our "Contact Us" form, which can be found at www.jonesday.com/contactus/.

Antonio F. Dias
Washington
+1.202.879.3624
afdias@jonesday.com

Harold K. Gordon
New York
+1.212.326.3740
hkgordon@jonesday.com

Courtney L. Snyder
Pittsburgh
+1.412.394.7910
clsnyder@jonesday.com

Jones Day publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information purposes only and may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the Firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our "Contact Us" form, which can be found on our website at www.jonesday.com. The mailing of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Firm.

We use cookies to deliver our online services. Details of the cookies and other tracking technologies we use and instructions on how to disable them are set out in our Cookies Policy. By using this website you consent to our use of cookies.