The opinion of the court was delivered by: MCLAUGHLIN
McLAUGHLIN, District Judge
A grand jury is investigating allegations of corruption and kickbacks in the allocation of certain state court guardianship and conservatorship appointments. A grand jury subpoena duces tecum directed to petitioner, an attorney, was served upon petitioner's secretary on or about March 10, 1986. No issue is made as to the mode of service.
The subpoena commands the attorney to produce "any and all retainer agreements, bills, invoices, payment records or other records of monies or property transferred to [him], and time sheets" for 1980-1986 relating to sixty-one (61) named individuals. The individuals are all attorneys who received guardianship appointments in the last few years. The government suspects that some of these individuals made kickbacks to the attorney-petitioner in exchange for this patronage.
Petitioner moves to quash the subpoena on the grounds n.1 [Footnote omitted] that it is overbroad and not relevant to the grand jury's investigation, and that the compelled production of the documents violates his Fifth Amendment rights.
Initially, petitioner objects that the subpoena is overbroad and irrelevant to the grand jury's investigation. To be valid, a subpoena duces tecum must meet the following requirements:
(1) The documents requested must be relevant to the subject matter of a legitimate grand jury investigation;
(2) The subpoena must describe the materials to be produced with reasonable particularity; and
(3) The documents may not cover more than a reasonable period of time.
In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Served Upon Rabbinical Seminary Netzach Israel Ramailis, 450 F. Supp. 1078, 1084 (E.D.N.Y. 1978).
Information presented to this Court in a closed proceeding on April 4, 1985 satisfies me that the subpoenaed documents are relevant to a legitimate grand jury investigation. Moreover, the Court finds .that the items requested are specified with sufficient particularity that the person commanded to comply will know what he is being directed to produce. In re Corrado Brothers, Inc., 367 F. Supp. 1126, 1132 (D.Del. 1973). Finally, the time period specified in the subpoena is reasonable.
Accordingly, the motion to quash on the grounds of relevance and overbreadth is denied. ...