Filed: Jun. 04, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 04, 2012
Summary: ORDER MICHAEL E. HEGARTY, Magistrate Judge. Pending before the Court is the Security and Exchange Commission's Ex Parte Application for Order to Show Cause and for an Order Compelling Compliance with Administrative Subpoenas [ filed March 22, 2012; docket #1 ]. The Court held a hearing on the Application on June 1, 2012, at 10:00 a.m., at which Respondent McDuffie appeared on behalf of himself and Jilapuhn, Inc. Respondent Williams did not appear. 1 With the exception of a misunderstanding
Summary: ORDER MICHAEL E. HEGARTY, Magistrate Judge. Pending before the Court is the Security and Exchange Commission's Ex Parte Application for Order to Show Cause and for an Order Compelling Compliance with Administrative Subpoenas [ filed March 22, 2012; docket #1 ]. The Court held a hearing on the Application on June 1, 2012, at 10:00 a.m., at which Respondent McDuffie appeared on behalf of himself and Jilapuhn, Inc. Respondent Williams did not appear. 1 With the exception of a misunderstanding r..
More
ORDER
MICHAEL E. HEGARTY, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is the Security and Exchange Commission's Ex Parte Application for Order to Show Cause and for an Order Compelling Compliance with Administrative Subpoenas [filed March 22, 2012; docket #1]. The Court held a hearing on the Application on June 1, 2012, at 10:00 a.m., at which Respondent McDuffie appeared on behalf of himself and Jilapuhn, Inc. Respondent Williams did not appear.1 With the exception of a misunderstanding regarding the noticed deposition, Mr. McDuffie did not contest the validity of the subpoenas or the merits of the Commission's Application. However, Mr. McDuffie requested the hearing be moved to a later date when his attorney could attend in person. The Court denied his request.
Upon review of the Application and the Declaration of Danielle Voorhees [docket #4] submitted therewith, I find that judicial enforcement of the Commission's administrative subpoenas is warranted because (1) the inquiry is conducted pursuant to a lawfully authorized, legitimate purpose; (2) it is reasonably relevant to an investigation which the agency has authority to conduct; and (3) all administrative prerequisites have been met. See Application to Enforce Administrative Subpoenas Duces Tecum of SEC v. Knowles, 87 F.3d 413, 415 (10th Cir. 1996) (citing United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57-58 (1964)). Therefore, as discussed on the record, I hereby ORDER the following:
Respondents Williams, McDuffie, and Jilapuhn, Inc. shall produce all documents described in the administrative subpoenas issued by the Commission [dockets ##4-11, 4-12, 4-13, 4-15, 4-17] on or before June 15, 2012.
Additionally, Respondents Williams and McDuffie shall appear at the Securities and Exchange Commission's Denver Regional Office, 1801 California Street, Suite 1500, Denver, Colorado on June 22, 2012, at 8:30 a.m., to testify under oath regarding the matters identified in the January 26, 2012 subpoenas previously served on the Respondents. (See dockets ##4-13, 4-15.)
Finally, the Securities and Exchange Commission shall use its best efforts to effect personal service of this Order on all Respondents named in this action, and shall file proof of service with the Court on or before June 8, 2012.
