Continental Oil Company v. United States, No. 19044.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtORR, POPE and KOELSCH, Circuit
Citation330 F.2d 347
PartiesCONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY, a corporation, et al., Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
Docket NumberNo. 19044.
Decision Date27 March 1964

330 F.2d 347 (1964)

CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY, a corporation, et al., Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 19044.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

March 27, 1964.


330 F.2d 348

A. T. Biggers, Houston, Tex., Shimmel, Hill, Kleindienst & Bishop, and Donald D. Meyers, Phoenix, Ariz., Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro, Wallace L. Kaapcke, Thomas E. Haven, and James O'M. Tingle, San Francisco, Cal., and Ryley, Carlock & Ralston, Phoenix, Ariz., for appellants.

William H. Orrick, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Lionel Kestenbaum, Gerald Kadish, and Arthur J. Murphy, Jr., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before ORR, POPE and KOELSCH, Circuit Judges.

POPE, Circuit Judge.

After this matter had been submitted, the court was of the view that the circumstances here were such as to require an immediate ruling. Accordingly this court stated the facts in the matter and announced its decision in a preliminary order reading as follows:

"In this matter the court has been advised that a prompt decision is important. As noted shortly, the facts rose out of subpoenas issued in aid of a Federal Grand Jury proceeding in Phoenix, Arizona. It is the information of the court that the life of the Grand Jury will terminate shortly and we therefore consider that justice demands that this case be decided before that time arrives. Accordingly we are here announcing our decision in the case by way of conclusions, without further delay. Our opinion stating the reasons for our conclusions will be filed hereafter.
"During the proceedings of the Grand Jury certain employees and executives of the appellants Standard Oil Company of California, and Continental Oil Company, were summoned to testify before it. Before and after their appearance before the Grand Jury these witnesses were interviewed by their respective counsel. The record shows that counsel who carried on the interview were attorneys not only for the corporations but for the witnesses themselves. Counsel who conducted these interviews prepared memoranda concerning the information received from such witnesses and relating to the clients\' appearance before the Grand Jury. After these memoranda had been received, counsel representing Standard Oil Company, and its employees who had testified, and counsel representing Continental Oil Company, and its employees who had testified, exchanged such memoranda in confidence in order to apprise each other as to the nature and scope of the inquiry proceeding before the Grand Jury. The appellants here assert that this was done in order to make their representation of their clients in connection with the Grand Jury investigation
330 F.2d 349
and any resulting litigation, more effective.
"Thereafter subpoenas duces tecum were served upon Standard Oil Company of California, its vice-president, and on attorneys for Standard Oil Company of California. In like manner subpoenas were issued in aid of the Grand Jury in Phoenix directed to and served on Continental Oil Company, its executives, and their attorneys. The subpoenas called for the production before the Grand Jury of the aforesaid memoranda prepared by the lawyers and remaining in their possession.
"All the persons subpoenaed moved to quash all of such subpoenas asserting 1, that these memoranda were confidential and within the attorney-client privilege; and 2, that they were not required to
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
92 practice notes
  • United States v. Nelson, No. G78-115 CR5.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District Michigan)
    • February 15, 1980
    ...Inc. v. United States Dept. of Air 486 F. Supp. 484 Force, 566 F.2d 242 (U.S.Ct.App.D.C.1977); Continental Oil Company v. United States, 330 F.2d 347 (9th Cir. 1964); Schwimmer v. United States, 232 F.2d 855 (8th Cir. 1956); and United States v. Jacobs, 322 F.Supp. 1299 (C.D.California 1971......
  • United States v. King, No. CR 81-366 MRP.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Central District of California
    • March 15, 1982
    ...833, 100 S.Ct. 65, 62 L.Ed.2d 43 (1979); Hunydee v. United States, 355 F.2d 183 (9th Cir. 1965); Continental Oil Co. v. United States, 330 F.2d 347 (9th Cir. 1964) (disapproved in part on other grounds in Los Angeles v. Williams, 438 F.2d 522 (9th Cir. 1971)); 2 J. Weinstein, Evidence ¶ 503......
  • Rojas v. F.A.A., No. 17-55036
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • April 24, 2019
    ...consultants. See, e.g., Hickman, 329 U.S. at 510-11, 67 S.Ct. 385 (work product materials are protected); Cont'l Oil Co. v. United States, 330 F.2d 347, 350 (9th Cir. 1964) (attorney-client privilege is protected); Nobles, 422 U.S. at 238, 95 S.Ct. 2160 (work product encompasses material pr......
  • Grand Jury Subpoenas, In re, No. 77-1599
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • April 5, 1978
    ...for the S. Dist. of W. Va., 238 F.2d 713, 719 (4th Cir. 1956); cf. United States v. Briggs, supra; Continental Oil Co. v. United States, 330 F.2d 347, 349 (9th Cir. Clearly this is an exceptional case. If GM's assertion concerning the impropriety of Piliaris's presence before the grand jury......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
91 cases
  • United States v. Nelson, No. G78-115 CR5.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District Michigan)
    • February 15, 1980
    ...Inc. v. United States Dept. of Air 486 F. Supp. 484 Force, 566 F.2d 242 (U.S.Ct.App.D.C.1977); Continental Oil Company v. United States, 330 F.2d 347 (9th Cir. 1964); Schwimmer v. United States, 232 F.2d 855 (8th Cir. 1956); and United States v. Jacobs, 322 F.Supp. 1299 (C.D.California 1971......
  • United States v. King, No. CR 81-366 MRP.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Central District of California
    • March 15, 1982
    ...833, 100 S.Ct. 65, 62 L.Ed.2d 43 (1979); Hunydee v. United States, 355 F.2d 183 (9th Cir. 1965); Continental Oil Co. v. United States, 330 F.2d 347 (9th Cir. 1964) (disapproved in part on other grounds in Los Angeles v. Williams, 438 F.2d 522 (9th Cir. 1971)); 2 J. Weinstein, Evidence ¶ 503......
  • Rojas v. F.A.A., No. 17-55036
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • April 24, 2019
    ...consultants. See, e.g., Hickman, 329 U.S. at 510-11, 67 S.Ct. 385 (work product materials are protected); Cont'l Oil Co. v. United States, 330 F.2d 347, 350 (9th Cir. 1964) (attorney-client privilege is protected); Nobles, 422 U.S. at 238, 95 S.Ct. 2160 (work product encompasses material pr......
  • Grand Jury Subpoenas, In re, No. 77-1599
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • April 5, 1978
    ...for the S. Dist. of W. Va., 238 F.2d 713, 719 (4th Cir. 1956); cf. United States v. Briggs, supra; Continental Oil Co. v. United States, 330 F.2d 347, 349 (9th Cir. Clearly this is an exceptional case. If GM's assertion concerning the impropriety of Piliaris's presence before the grand jury......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT