Herring v. Lisbon Partners
2012 ND 226
| N.D. | 2012Background
- Department of Human Services’ Child Support Enforcement Division served an administrative subpoena on North Dakota Insurance Reserve Fund (NDIRF) seeking all records identifying claimants and amounts, regardless of form.
- NDIRF, a government self-insurance pool, objected on grounds of lack of statutory authority, vagueness, ambiguity, and burden.
- District court denied enforcement, holding the Department lacked statutory authority to issue an administrative subpoena to NDIRF.
- The Department appealed the district court’s denial, arguing statutory authority and that the subpoena was proper; the district court did not rule on vagueness or burden.
- The Supreme Court held jurisdiction exists under special-proceeding appeal statute and reversed, remanding for four-factor review of the subpoena’s enforceability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the district court’s order appealable? | Department: appeal authorized under special proceeding provision. | NDIRF: no appealability under ordinary-action rules. | Yes; appealable as a final order in special proceeding. |
| Does the Department have authority to enforce an administrative subpoena on NDIRF? | Subpoena authority exists under N.D.C.C. § 50-09-08.2(1)(b). | Statutory framework, particularly § 26.1-02-28, creates discretion not authority to compel. | Department has authority to compel production; statutes harmonized to permit subpoenas. |
| Do § 26.1-02-28 and § 50-09-08.2(1)(b) irreconcilably conflict? | No irreconcilable conflict; can harmonize. | Yes; § 26.1-02-28 renders NDIRF’s disclosure discretionary and immune, conflicting with subpoena power. | No irreconcilable conflict; they can be harmonized. |
| If consistent, should the district court review the subpoena for vagueness, ambiguity, or undue burden under four-factor test? | Vagueness and burdens can be considered on remand. | Subpoena should be enforceable unless clearly invalid. | Remand for four-factor review of vagueness, ambiguity, and burden. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hammer, 2010 ND 152 (ND 2010) (appeal from enforcement of administrative subpoena; four-factor review framework referenced)
- State v. Altru Health Sys., 2007 ND 38 (ND 2007) (appeal from orders in administrative proceeding; enforcement context)
- Medical Arts Clinic, P.C. v. Franciscan Initiatives, Inc., 531 N.W.2d 289 (N.D. 1995) (enforcement of administrative subpoenas; four-factor approach)
- Holbach v. City of Minot, 2012 ND 117 (ND 2012) (jurisdiction and statutory interpretation in review of orders)
- N.D. Cent. Cases cited in opinion, 2000 ND 181, 618 N.W.2d 166 (ND 2000) (use of subsequent amendments to determine legislative intent)