Case ID: f-appx_427/html/0594-01.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, Petitioner-Appellee, v. LEE GODDARD & DUFFY LLP and William A. Goddard, Respondents-Appellants.
    No. 08-55124.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 13, 2011.
    
    Filed April 15, 2011.
    Sandra R. Brown, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Paul S. Ham, Esquire, Kenneth W. Rosenberg, Bridget M. Rowan, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Petitioner-Appellee.
    Harvinder S. Anand, Esquire, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Bradley A. Patterson, Esquire, Lawyers Group International, Irvine, CA, for Respondent-Appellant.
    Before: D.W. NELSON, BYBEE, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Lee, Goddard & Duffy, LLP, and William A. Goddard, IV, appeal the district court’s November 2007 order regarding two tax summonses. As the facts and procedural history are familiar to the parties, we do not recite them here except as necessary to explain our disposition.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. United States v. Jose, 519 U.S. 54, 55-57, 117 S.Ct. 468, 136 L.Ed.2d 364 (1996) (per curiam). “The Order on its face evidenced the judge’s intention that it be final.... [I]t fully adjudicated the issues at bar.” Slimick v. Silva (In re Slimick), 928 F.2d 304, 308 (9th Cir.1990). Unlike the June 2006 order, the November 2007 order did not explicitly reserve questions of privilege for future proceedings. Cf. Steinert v. United States, 571 F.2d 1105, 1106-07 (9th Cir.1978). Accordingly, we refrain from combing the record in an attempt to divine whether the district court harbored subjective intentions that contradicted its written order.

Appellants have waived any arguments regarding the district court’s conclusion that the disputed documents were responsive to the summonses. “ ‘We review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief. We will not manufacture arguments for an appellant, and a bare assertion does not preserve a claim....’” Indep. Living Ctr. of S. Cal., Inc. v. Shewry, 543 F.3d 1050, 1065 n. 17 (9th Cir.2008) (citation omitted). Parties may not incorporate their district court briefs by reference. 9th Cir. R. 28-1(b); 16AA Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 3974.1 n. 33 (4th ed. 2010 Supp.) (collecting cases). We therefore affirm the district court’s conclusion that the disputed documents related to “tax shelter transactions” under the terms of the summonses.

Because we affirm the district court’s determination on the underlying legal dispute, we also conclude that the court acted within its discretion by declining to review documents in camera or allow Appellants an opportunity to file sworn affidavits. Tiffany Fine Arts, Inc. v. United States, 469 U.S. 310, 324 n. 7, 105 S.Ct. 725, 83 L.Ed.2d 678 (1985); Donaldson v. United States, 400 U.S. 517, 528-29, 91 S.Ct. 534, 27 L.Ed.2d 580 (1971), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Tiffany Fine Arts, 469 U.S. at 316, 105 S.Ct. 725.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.