In re: GRAND JURY SUBPOENA (Completely SEALED CASE), No. 18-50321 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 28 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In re: GRAND JURY SUBPOENA, Dated March 21, 2018, ______________________________ No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-50321 D.C. No. 2:18-cm-00771-UA-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, MEMORANDUM* Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DOE, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California John A. Kronstadt, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted December 4, 2018 Pasadena, California Before: D.W. NELSON and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and PRATT,** District Judge. Doe appeals the district court’s order holding her in civil contempt for * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation. refusing to produce records of her foreign bank activity for the years 2011 through 2016 as sought by a federal grand jury subpoena duces tecum. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm. Doe asserts that the spousal testimonial privilege protects her from producing documents responsive to the subpoena because the grand jury is currently investigating possible federal tax crimes committed by her husband.1 For the spousal testimonial privilege to apply, “the anticipated testimony ‘[must] in fact be adverse’ to the nonwitness spouse.” United States v. Van Cauwenberghe, 827 F.2d 424, 431 (9th Cir. 1987) (citation omitted); see also United States v. Fomichev, 899 F.3d 766, 771 (9th Cir. 2018) (“[T]he witness-spouse alone has a privilege to refuse to testify adversely.”) (emphasis added) (citation omitted). Here, “the testimonial aspect of [Doe’s] response to a subpoena duces tecum does nothing more than establish the existence, authenticity, and custody” of any responsive foreign bank account records. United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 40–41 (2000). Because this bare testimonial aspect of Doe’s act of production does not itself adversely affect her husband’s case, Doe is not relieved of her obligation to produce foreign bank account records over which she has care, 1 Although Doe also raised claims of privilege under the Fifth Amendment, and the marital communications privilege, before the district court, these arguments were not raised on appeal and are therefore waived. Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”). 2 custody, or control. AFFIRMED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
