Case ID: f-appx_691/html/0343-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Peter SPITZAUER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-30095
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted May 12, 2017 Seattle, Washington
    Filed May 17, 2017
    James A. Goeke, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-United States Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Washington, Spokane, WA, Rudy J. Verschoor, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USSP — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Christopher Robert Black, Attorney, Teymur Askerov, Attorney, Law Office of Christopher Black, PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before; McKEOWN, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Pursuant to the motion of the United States, the district court permitted disclosure of pre-existing business records subpoenaed by the grand jury in criminal proceedings against Michael Spitzauer. We have jurisdiction over Spitzauer’s appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Where (1) grand-jury proceedings have concluded and an indictment has issued; (2) the disclosure is sought for a legitimate purpose; and (3) the requested disclosure is for preexisting business , records generated for a purpose other than the grand jury investigation, the disclosure of the requested records does not compromise the integrity of the grand jury process and does not amount to a disclosure of matters occurring before the grand jury. See United States v. Dynavac, Inc., 6 F.3d 1407, 1411-12 (9th Cir. 1993). The facts of this case fall squarely within Dynavac’s holding and do not present “a rare and unusual case,” where learning which documents the grand jury subpoenaed would disclose information about its deliberative process. See id. at 1412 n.2.

AFFIRMED. 
      
      
         This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.