Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO.: 1:00cr15-SPM

WILLIAM H. BLACK,

Defendant.

___________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

This cause comes before the Court on the Motion to Quash Subpoena

(doc. 1338) filed by Attorney Robert O. Bragdon, the Government’s response

(doc. 1346 and 1349), and Attorney Bragdon’s reply (doc. 1350).

The information sought by the subpoena involves settlement funds

received by William H. Black, whom Attorney Bragdon represented in an

unrelated civil case. Mr. Black has not waived his right to confidentiality. Under

the rules of professional conduct applicable to Attorney Bragdon, he can only

disclose the information about his representation of Mr. Black in limited

circumstances, which include compliance with a court order. Rule 1.6,

Confidentiality of Information, Tennessee Supreme Court, Rules of Professional

Conduct.

Case 1:00-cr-00015-MW-GRJ Document 1359 Filed 06/15/11 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

The Government is seeking information about the settlement funds

because Mr. Black owes more than $5 million dollars in restitution. The

settlement funds should have been applied toward Mr. Black’s outstanding

restitution obligation.1 But they were not. The information sought by the

Government is limited to “an accounting of the disbursement of settlement

funds.” Government’s Amendment to the Response to Motion to Quash, doc.

1349, ¶ 4. 

The Government may enforce an order of restitution in the same manner

as a fine, which is “in accordance with the practices and procedures for the

enforcement of a civil judgment under Federal law or state law.” 18 U.S.C. §

3613(a) and (f). Under federal law, judgment creditors are permitted to seek

discovery in aid of execution to find assets that the debtor has or that the debtor

fraudulently transferred. Fed. R. Civ. P. 69; Caisson Corp. v. County West Bldg.

Corp., 62 F.R.D. 331, 334 (E.D. Pa. 1974). 

A claim of privilege cannot be used to hide assets. Ranney-Brown

Distribs., Inc. v. E. T. Barwick Indus., Inc. 75 F.R.D. 3, 5 (D.C. Ohio 1977). Nor

will privilege prevent the disclosure of financial transactions that do not reveal

confidential communications. GFL Advantage Fund. Ltd. v. Colkitt, 216 F.R.D.

1

 18 U.S.C. § 3664(n) (“[I]f a person obligated to pay restitution, or pay a

fine, receives substantial resources from any source, including . . . settlement . .

. during a period of incarceration, such person shall be required to apply the

value of such resources to any restitution or fine still owed.”).

CASE NO.: 1:00cr15-SPM

Case 1:00-cr-00015-MW-GRJ Document 1359 Filed 06/15/11 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

189, 195-96 (D.D.C. 2003) (information about payments and deposits were

relevant to discovery of assets and were not communications protected by

attorney-client privilege). Here, the limited information sought by the

Government does not involve confidential communications and the information is

reasonably related to the discovery of Mr. Black’s assets. Moreover, the

Government has made a prima facie showing that the crime-fraud exception

applies because Mr. Black did not apply his settlement funds toward his

restitution obligation. Instead Mr. Black sought to avoid payment of restitution by

disbursing the settlement funds to accounts opened by his wife and he directed

Attorney Bragdon to disburse the funds in accordance with this goal. Based on

the foregoing, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: 

1. The Motion to Quash Subpoena (doc. 1338) is denied.

2. On or before June 30, 2011, Attorney Robert O. Bragdon shall 

provide the Government with an accounting of the disbursement of settlement

funds.

3. The Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Response 

(doc. 1339) is granted. The responses and reply were considered.

DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of June, 2011.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge

CASE NO.: 1:00cr15-SPM

Case 1:00-cr-00015-MW-GRJ Document 1359 Filed 06/15/11 Page 3 of 3