Re: Grand Jury Subpoena

• Decision Date: 14 September 2001
• Docket Number: No. 01-1975,01-1975
• Citation: 274 F.3d 563
• Parties: (1st Cir. 2001) IN RE GRAND JURY SUBPOENA (CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS, NEWPARENT, INC.), A. NAMELESS LAWYER (A PSEUDONYM) ET AL., Intervenors, Appellants. Heard
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

Page 563

274 F.3d 563 (1st Cir. 2001)

IN RE GRAND JURY SUBPOENA (CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS, NEWPARENT, INC.), A. NAMELESS LAWYER (A PSEUDONYM) ET AL., Intervenors, Appellants.

No. 01-1975

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

Heard Sept. 14, 2001

Decided November 8, 2001

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay, U.S. District Judge

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

[Copyrighted Material Omitted] Andrew Good, with whom Harvey A. Silverglate, Silverglate & Good, Norman Zalkind, David Duncan, Zalkind, Rodriguez, Lunt & Duncan, Martin G. Weinberg, Oteri, Weinberg & Lawson, Elizabeth B. Burnett, and Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky & Popeo were on consolidated brief, for appellants.

John M. Hodgens, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, with whom James B. Farmer, United States Attorney, and Stephen P. Heymann, Assistant United States Attorney, were on brief, for the United States.

Before Selya and Lipez, Circuit Judges, and Doumar,^* Senior District Judge.

SELYA, Circuit Judge.

This appeal requires us to traverse largely unexplored terrain concerning the operation of the attorney-client and work product privileges. The underlying controversy arises out of a subpoena duces tecum issued by a federal grand jury to a corporation, seeking records pertaining to the affairs of a subsidiary. Although the corporation and the subsidiary waived all claims of privilege, the subsidiary's former attorney and two of its former officers intervened and moved to quash the subpoena. They claimed that the subsidiary had entered into a longstanding joint defense agreement with the former officers and contended that the subpoenaed materials were privileged (and, thus, not amenable to disclosure). The district court eschewed an evidentiary hearing and denied the motion to quash, but stayed production of the documents pending appeal.

We affirm the district court's order. We hold that an individual privilege may exist in these circumstances only to the extent that communications made in a corporate officer's personal capacity are separable from those made in his corporate capacity. Because the intervenors do not allege that any of the subpoenaed documents are solely privileged to them but rest instead on the theory that all the documents are jointly privileged, their claim, as a matter of law, does not survive the subsidiary's waiver. The joint defense agreement does not demand a different result: privileges are created, and their contours defined, by operation of law, and private agreements cannot enlarge their scope. Moreover, this particular joint defense agreement is unenforceable.

We have a second, independently sufficient ground for our decision. The denial of the motion to quash must be upheld in all events because the intervenors failed to generate a descriptive list of the documents alleged to be privileged.

I. BACKGROUND

We start by recounting the events leading to this appeal. Consistent with the secrecy that typically attaches to grand jury matters, see, e.g., Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e), this case has gone forward under an order sealing the proceedings, the briefs, and the parties' proffers. To preserve that confidentiality, we use fictitious names for all affected persons and corporations.

On March 26, 2001, Oldco -- a Massachusetts corporation in the business of processing, packaging, and distributing food products -- entered into a plea agreement with the United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts. Under the agreement's terms, Oldco pled guilty to charges of conspiracy to defraud the Internal Revenue Service and agreed to cooperate with the government's ongoing investigation of certain present and former officers, employees, and customers. As part of this cooperation, Oldco expressly waived applicable attorney-client and work product privileges. Soon thereafter, a federal grand jury issued a subpoena duces tecum to Oldco's parent corporation, Newparent, Inc., demanding the production of documents relating to its "rebate program" -- a program under which, according to the government, Oldco would charge certain complicit customers more than the going rate for its products, but would then refund the difference by payments made directly to principals of these customers.

At the time the subpoena was served, Oldco was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Newparent. Its records were in the possession of Newparent's counsel, a law firm that we shall call Smith & Jones. Newparent had acquired Oldco in June of 1998, but the grand jury investigation focused on conduct that occurred prior to the acquisition date. During that earlier period, Oldco had operated as a closely held corporation, owned by a number of members of a single family; one family member (Richard Roe) served as its board chairman and chief executive officer, and another (Morris Moe) served on the board and as executive vice-president for sales and marketing. A. Nameless Lawyer was Oldco's principal outside counsel. These three individuals -- Roe, Moe, and Lawyer -- intervened in the proceedings and filed a motion to quash the subpoena.

The factual premise for the motion to quash is derived largely from Lawyer's affidavit. He states that while representing Oldco he also represented Roe and Moe in various individual matters. Moreover, he claims to have conducted this simultaneous representation of corporate and individual clients under a longstanding joint defense agreement. According to Lawyer, this agreement, although never committed to writing, provided that communications among the three clients were jointly privileged and could not be released without unanimous consent. Despite the absence of any reference to this agreement in the corporate records -- there was no resolution or other vote of the board of directors authorizing Oldco to participate in such an arrangement -- the intervenors assert that Roe, as chief executive officer, had the authority to commit the corporation to it.

Pertinently, Lawyer claims to have represented Oldco and its officers in connection with the grand jury investigation from and after October 1997 (when the grand jury served Oldco with an earlier subpoena requesting the production of certain customer records). He says that the oral joint defense agreement applies to this multiple-party representation and that he told the government that he represented Oldco and "all of its executives."

There is, to be sure, a written joint defense agreement entered into by and between Lawyer, as counsel for Roe/Moe, and Smith & Jones, as counsel for Newparent/Oldco.¹ However, that agreement was not executed until the fall of 1999 (by which time Lawyer was no longer representing Oldco). There is no evidence in the voluminous record (apart from Lawyer's affidavit) that any joint defense agreement existed before that time. Moreover, the intervenors neglected to mention the existence of an oral joint defense agreement when Newparent acquired Oldco and likewise failed to incorporate any reference to such a pact into the subsequent written agreement.

Notwithstanding these discrepancies, the intervenors solemnly maintain that the oral joint defense agreement existed from 1990 forward; that its terms apply to the grand jury investigation; and that it gives them a joint privilege -- they mention both attorney-client and work product privileges -- in the Oldco documents currently in the hands of Smith & Jones. But they do not identify any particular documents as privileged, nor do they specify the reasons why certain communications should be considered privileged. Thus, like soothsayers scrutinizing the entrails of a goat, we are left to scour the record for indications of what these documents might be and what they might contain. As best we can tell, some of the documents comprise transcripts of interviews with Oldco employees (including Roe and Moe); others comprise Lawyer's written summaries of Oldco's internal investigation into the rebate program.

Not surprisingly, the government and Oldco both filed oppositions to the intervenors' motion to quash. In response, the intervenors sought leave to present immunized evidence with respect to the privilege claims. They also filed a formal offer of proof and requested an evidentiary hearing. The district court denied the motion to quash at a non-evidentiary hearing held on July 2, 2001, thereby implicitly denying the intervenors' other requests. This expedited appeal ensued.

II. JUSTICIABILITY

We turn first to a pair of threshold questions that implicate our authority to hear and determine this appeal. Neither question need occupy us for long.

First, we are satisfied that Roe, Moe, and Lawyer were properly allowed to intervene in the proceedings below for the purpose of pursuing quashal of the subpoena. Intervention is appropriate as of right when the disposition of an action may impair or impede the applicant's cognizable interest. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). Colorable claims of attorney-client and work product privilege qualify as sufficient interests to ground intervention as of right. See In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Diamante), 814 F.2d 61, 66 (1st Cir. 1987) (implying that "the existence of a privileged relationship or of a legitimate property or privacy interest in the documents possessed by the third party" is sufficient to establish standing). Clearly, those interests would be forfeited if Newparent were to comply with the grand jury subpoena -- and, as matters now stand, Newparent has no incentive to protect the intervenors' interests. Consequently, this is a textbook example of an entitlement to intervention as of right.

Second, although denial of a motion to quash a subpoena is not usually considered a final judgment and thus is not ordinarily an appealable event, we believe that we have appellate jurisdiction in this instance. An exception to the requirement of finality exists...