SEC v. Lines Overseas Mgt
., 04 Misc. 302, 2005 WL 3627141 (D.D.C. Jan. 7, 2005)(detailing background of case and addressing respondents’ challenges to enforceability of subpoenas). The same practice was employed in the case of
SEC v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc.
, No. 03 Misc. 1651 (D.D.C. 2003). A copy of the docket sheet from
is attached to the accompanying declaration as Exhibit B.
See SEC v. R.J. ReynoldsTobacco Holdings
., No. 03 Misc. 1651, 2004 WL 3168281 (D.D.C. June 29, 2004)(detailing background of case and addressing merits of SEC’s application for an orderrequiring obedience to a subpoena).The D.C. Circuit has reviewed subpoena enforcement actions commenced in thismanner and has never suggested that a district court must provide a respondent with anopportunity to be heard
the issuance of an Order to Show Cause.
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Frates
, 61 F.3d 962, 963-64 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (approving district court’s order toenforce an administrative subpoena and noting that “Judge Stanley S. Harris issued an
order to show cause why the court should not grant the petition [to enforce an administrativesubpoena] and, after oral argument, order the subpoena enforced”);
Commodity FuturesTrading Comm’n v. Nahas
, 738 F.2d 487, 489-90 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (considering appeal fromorder enforcing subpoena where enforcement action was initiated through a petition for anorder to show cause against Brazilian resident). Courts in other districts have similarly issuedOrders to Show Cause in SEC subpoena enforcement actions in this manner.
Applicationto Enforce Admin. Subpoenas Duces Tecum of the SEC v. Knowles
, 87 F.3d 413, 415 (10th Cir.1996) (describing background procedure by which the SEC filed an
application for anorder to show cause and, thereafter, served the respondent with the order);
SEC v. Nicita
, No.07CV772 WQH (AJB), 2007 WL 1704585, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 13, 2007) (same). Similarly,
Case 1:11-mc-00512-GK-DAR Document 7 Filed 10/13/11 Page 3 of 14