*The Honorable John F. Nangle, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-2010

___________

* Appeal from the United States 

In re: Grand Jury Proceedings. * District Court for the Western

* District of Missouri.

*

* [UNPUBLISHED]

___________

Submitted: March 17, 2000

Filed: March 22, 2000

___________

Before HANSEN and FAGG, Circuit Judges, and NANGLE,* District Judge.

___________

PER CURIAM.

During a grand jury investigation of Joe Dan Dwyer's alleged involvement in an

insurance fraud scheme, law enforcement officers discovered evidence that Dwyer paid

the college tuition for the child of a Missouri Department of Insurance employee. The

grand jury issued a subpoena duces tecum to the college for records related to those

tuition payments, and Dwyer moved to intervene and to quash the subpoena. The

district court denied both motions, and the college then complied with the subpoena.

We must first address the Government's contention that the college's compliance

with the subpoena moots Dwyer's appeal. A case can become moot while pending on
-2-

appeal if an event occurs "that makes it impossible for the court to grant 'any effectual

relief whatever' to a prevailing party." Church of Scientology v. United States, 506

U.S. 9, 12 (1992) (quoted case omitted). Mere compliance with a grand jury subpoena

does not moot an appeal, however, when as in this case a court can provide a partial

remedy such as "the return or destruction of those documents." In re Grand Jury

Subpoenas Duces Tecum, 78 F.3d 1307, 1311 (8th Cir. 1996); accord Church of

Scientology, 506 U.S. at 12-13; Grand Jury Proceedings v. United States, 156 F.3d

1038, 1040 (10th Cir. 1998). Because Dwyer "raised a claim of privilege respecting

the documents at issue," we also reject the Government's contention that Dwyer lacks

standing to challenge the subpoena. In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 148 F.3d 487, 490

(5th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 1336 (1999); accord In re Grand Jury

Proceedings, 655 F.2d 882, 884 (8th Cir. 1981).

On appeal, Dwyer contends the district court should have granted his motions

to intervene and quash the subpoena because the college's production of the requested

documents violates his Fifth Amendment and First Amendment rights. We disagree.

Dwyer's Fifth Amendment rights are not violated because the college's compliance does

"not 'compel' [Dwyer] to do anything – and certainly [does] not compel him to be a

'witness' against himself." Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 396, 397 (1976).

Likewise, even assuming Dwyer could show that compliance with the subpoena

infringes on his First Amendment rights, we would still enforce the subpoena because

the Government has shown "a compelling interest in and a sufficient nexus between the

information sought and the subject matter of its investigation." In re Grand Jury

Subpoenas Duces Tecum, 78 F.3d at 1312. Dwyer's remaining contention that

production of the documents violates various state law privileges also fails because

none of the alleged privileges applies to Dwyer's relationship with the college. See

A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. v. Drew, 978 S.W.2d 386, 394 (Mo. App. 1998) (elements

of state law fiduciary relationship and duty of confidentiality). 
-3-

Having concluded the college's compliance with the grand jury subpoena does

not implicate any of Dwyer's claimed rights or privileges, we affirm the district court's

denial of Dwyer's motions to intervene and to quash. 

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.