2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

9-22-2005 

# H e rring v . U SA
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 04-4270

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin
. C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" H e r r in g v . U SA" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 463. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/463P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 04- 4270

PATRI CI A J

. HER RI NG , I ND I VI DU ALLY ; J UD I TH P AL YA L OE T HE R, I NDI VI DUAL L Y AND A S A L I VI NG HE I R O F E L I Z AB E T H P AL YA ( DE CE AS E D) ; WI L L I AM P AL YA, I NDI VI DUAL L Y AND A S A L I VI NG HE I R O F E L I Z AB E T H P AL YA ( DE CE AS E D) ; RO BE RT P AL YA, I NDI VI DUAL L Y AND A S A L I VI NG HE I R O F EL I ZABE TH P ALYA ( DECE ASE D) ; S USAN BRAUNER, IN D IV ID U A L L Y A N D A S A L IV IN G H E IR O F P H Y L L IS BRAUNER ( DECE ASE D) ; CATHER I NE BRAUNER, IN D IV ID U A L L Y A N D A S A L IV IN G H E IR O F P H Y L L IS

B R A U N E R (D E C E A S E D ), A p p e llan ts

v. UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D i s t r i ctC our tN o. 03- C V

- 5500) D istric t C o u rt Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le L e g ro m e D . D a v is2 A r gued: J ul y15, 2005 B e f o re : A L IT O , V A N A N T W E R P E N a n d A L D IS E R T ,

C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed: Sept ember 22, 2005)

W i l s on M

. B r ow n, I I I ( A r gued) L or i J

. R apuano A n g ie H a lim Dr i n k e rBi d d l e & Re a t h , LLP O n e L o g an S q u are 1 8 th a n d C h e rryS tre e ts Phi l adel phi a, PA 19103 A tto rn e y s f

o r A p p e llan ts Pet erD

. K ei s l er A s s i s t antA t t or neyG ener al Pat r i ck L. M eeha n U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney B a rb a ra L . H e rw ig A ugus tE

. Fl ent

j e ( A r gued) A t t o r n e ys A ppel l at e St aff

, C i vi l D i vi s i on D epart m entof J us t i ce 950 Penns y l vani a A venue, N W , R oom 7242 W as hi ngt on, D

. C

. 20530- 0001 A t t or ney s forA ppel l ee3 OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udge. In th is case w e d ec ide w h ethe r th e G o v ern m en t’ s asse rt ion o f m il it ar y sec rets privil eg e f o r an ac cide n t r ep o rt di s cus s i ng t he O ct ober6 , 1 9 4 8 cr as h of a B-29 bomberw hi ch k ill e d th re e c iv ili a n e n g in e e rs a lo n g w ith six m ili tar yp e rso n n e l, a t W a y c ro s s , G e o rg ia , w a s f ra u d u p o n th e c o u rt
. I. A c tio n s f

o r f ra u d u p o n th e c o u rt a re so ra re th a t th is C our thas notpr evi ous l yhad the occ as i on to arti cul at e a l egal d ef i ni t i on of t he conce pt
. T he conce pt of fr aud upon t he c o u rt c h a llen g e s the v e ryp rin c ip le u p o n w h ich o u r ju d icia l sy ste m is base d: t he fi nal i t yof a j udgm ent
. T he pr es um pt i on agai ns tt he reopen i ng of a c ase t hat ha s g on e t hroug h the app el l at e process al l t he w ayt o t he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our tand r eac hed fi nal j udgm en t mustbe notj us ta hi gh hur dl e t o cl i m b buta s t eep c lif f -f a c e to s c a le

. I n or dert o m eett he nec es s ar i l ydemandi ng s t andar d for proo f o f fraud upon t he courtw e conc l ude thatt her e mustbe: ( 1) an i nt ent i onal fr aud; ( 2) byan off i cerof the cour t ; ( 3) w hi chT he U ni t ed S t at es C our t of A ppeal s for t he S i xt h C i r cui thas 1 s etfor t h fi ve el ement s of fr aud upon the courtw hi ch cons i s tof c o n d u c t: “1 . O n th e p a rt o f a n o f f ic e r o f th e c o u rt; 2 . T h a t is d ire c ted to th e ‘ju d icia l m a c h in e ry ’ itse lf; 3

. T h a t is i ntent i on al l yfal se, w il l full ybli nd t o the t ruth, or i s i n reckl ess d isre g a rd f

o r th e tr u th ; 4 . T h a t is a p o sitiv e a v e rm e n t o r is conce al m entw hen one i s under a d u ty to di s cl os e; 5. T hat dece i ves t he court
. ” D emj anj uk v. Pet r ovs ky , 10 F. 3d 338, 348 (6 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). A l t hough ot herU ni t ed St at es C our t s of A ppeal s have not a rticu late d e x p re ss e lem e n ts o f f ra u d u p o n th e c o u rt a s th e S ix th C irc u it d id , the d o c trin e h a s b e e n c h a ra c ter ize d “ a s a sc h e m e to i nt er fe re w i t h t he j udi ci al m achi neryper for m i ng t he t as k of i m par t i al adj udi cat i on, as bypr event i ng t he oppos i ng par t yfr om f a ir ly p re s e n tin g h is c a s e o r d e f e n s e .” I n r e C oor di nat ed Pr etr i al Pr ocee di ngs i n A nt i bi ot i c A nt i t rus t A ct i ons , 538 F. 2d 180, 195 (8th C ir

. 1 9 7 6 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted); se e also R o zier v

. F o rd M o to r C o ., 5 7 3 F .2 d 1 3 3 2 , 1 3 3 8 (5 th C ir. 1 9 7 8 ) (h o ld in g “ o n ly t he mos t e g r e g i o u s mi s c o n d u c t , s u c h a s b r i b e r y o f a j u d ge or m em bers of a j ury , or t he fabri cat i on of evi den ce bya p a rty in w hi ch an a t t or neyi s i m pl i cat ed, w i l l cons t i tut e a f r au d on t he cour t ”)

. A ddi t i onal l y , fr aud upon t he cour tdi ffe r s fr om fr aud on a n a d v e rse p a rtyin th a t it“ is lim ited to f ra u d w h ich se rio u sly a f f e c ts th e in te g ri ty o f

th e n o rm a l p ro c e s s o f a d ju d ic a tio n .” G leaso n v . Jan d ruc k o , 8 6 0 F

. 2 d 5 5 6 , 5 5 9 (2d C ir

. 1 9 9 8 ). O ther U n it ed S tat es C o u rt s o f A p p ea ls ex p resslyreq u ir e th a t f ra u d u p o n th e c o u rt m u st in v o lv e a n o f f ice r o f th e c o u rt. See G eo. P. R ei nt

j es C o. v. R i l ey St okerC orp. , 71 F. 3d 44, 48

4 is d ire c ted a t th e c o u rt itse lf; a n d (4 ) in f a c t d e c e iv e s th e c o u rt. 1(1 st C ir. 1 9 9 5 ); D e m jan ju k , 1 0 F .3 d a t 3 4 8 . T h e N in th C irc u it not ed that “one s peci es of fr aud upon the courtoccur s w hen an

‘ offi cerof t he court ’ perpetr at es fr aud aff ect i ng t he abi l i t yof the cour torj ur yt o i m par t i al ly jud g e a cas e. ” Pum phr eyv. T hom ps on T ool C o. , 62 F. 3d 1128, 1 1 30 ( 9t h C i r . 1995) ; s ee al so W ees e v. Schukm an, 98 F

. 3 d 5 4 2, 553 ( 10t h C i r . 1996) ( not i ng t hat“fr aud on the cour ts houl d embra ce onl yt hats peci es of fr aud w hi ch does orat t empt s t o, s ubver t the inte gr i t yof the cour ti t s el f, ori s a fr aud perpetr at ed b yoffi cer s of the court ”) ( c i t a t i o n o mi t t e d ) ; Ke r wi t M e d

. P r o d s . , I n c . v . N. & H. Instrum en ts, Inc

. , 6 1 6 F

. 2 d 8 3 3 , 8 3 7 (11 th C ir

. 1 9 8 0 ) (sam e). 5 W e fu rt h er co n clud e th at a de term ination o f f rau d o n the c o u rt m aybe j u sti fi ed onl yby“the mostegr egi ous m i s conduct di r ect ed t o t he courti t s el f, ” and t hati t“mustbe s uppor t ed by cl ear , unequi vocal and convi nci ng evi dence

. ” I n r e C oor di nat ed Pretri al Pr ocee di ngs i n A nt i bi ot i c A nt i t rus tA ct i ons , 538 F. 2d 180, 195 ( 8t h C i r . 1976) ( ci t at ion s o m i t t ed)

. T he cl ai m of pr i vi l ege byt he U ni t ed St at es A i rFor ce i n t hi s cas e ca n r eas onabl y be i nt erpr et ed t o i ncl ude w i t hi n i t s s cope i nfor m at i on aboutt he w or ki ngs of t he B

- 29, and t her efor e does notm eett he d e m a n d in g s ta n d a rd f

o r f ra u d u p o n th e c o u rt
. II

. Ea r l yi n 2 0 0 0 , J u d i t h Pa l y a Lo e t h e rl e a r n e d t h r o u gh i nt ernetr es ear ch thatt he governm enthad dec l as s i fi ed A i rFor ce docume nt s r egar di ng m i l i t aryai r cr aftacc i dent s . She or der ed do cum ents rel a ted t o the cr ash of a B -29 bo m ber atW ay cross , G eor gi a, on O ct ober6, 1 9 4 8

. H erfather , A l ber tPal y a, al ong6 w i t h t w o ot herci vi l i an engi neer s , had bee n ki l l ed i n t hatcr as h. H erm otherand the othert w o w i dow s had s ued the G overnm ent un der t he T ortC l ai m s A ct , bu thad no tbeen able t o gai n acce ss t o t he, now decl as s i fi ed, A i r F o rce document s beca us e of the G overnm en t ’ s cl ai m t hatt he document s w er e pr ot ect ed by pr i vi l ege. T he ca s e w as hear d byt he Supr eme C o u r ti n U ni t ed St at es v. R eynol ds , 345 U

. S. 1 ( 1953) , w hi ch expl ai ned the l egal fr amew or k w e m u st u se i n anal y zi ng cl ai m s i n w hi ch the G o v ern m en t as s e rt s a p ri v il eg e a g ains t r ev ea li n g m il it ary s ecr et s . I d. at7- 12. T he S upr eme C our t r ever s ed the dec i s i on of t hi s C our tand r eman d ed the cas e t o D i s t r i ctC our tfor det er m i nat i on of w hethert he fa ct s of t h at par t i cul arcas e, appl i ed t o t he l egal s t andar d ar t i cul at ed, m er i t ed a de t er m i nat i on t hatt he pr i vi l ege s oughtbyt he G overnm ent s houl d be gr ant ed. Id. at12

. B efore t he D i stri ct C ou rt w as ab l e t o co nsi der t he case o n rem an d , the p arti es se tt led f o r 75 % o f th e D is tr ictC o u rt ’s or i gi nal ver di ctand the cas e w as t hen di s m i s s ed w i t h pr ej udi ce. T he Supr eme C our texpl ai ned the fa ct s an d pr ocedur al his t oryl eading u p to i t s det erm i nati on of the case as fol l ow s: T hes e s ui t s under t he T or tC l ai m s A ctar i s e fr om t he dea t h of t hr ee ci vi l i ans i n the cr as h of a B

- 29 ai r cr aftatW ay cr os s , G eor gi a, on O ct ober6, 1 9 48. B eca us e an i m por t antques t i on of the G o v e rn m e n t’s p riv ileg e to r e sis t d isc o v e ryis in v o lv e d , w e g ra n ted c e rtio ra ri. T h e airc r afthad t aken f l i ghtfort he purpos e of t es t i ng s ecr etel ectr oni c equi pm ent , w it h four ci vi l i an observer s aboar d. W hi l e al oft , fi r e br oke7 outi n o n e o f t he bomber ’ s engi nes . Si x of the ni ne cr ew m ember s , and thr ee of t he fourci vi l i an obs er ver s w er e ki l l ed i n t he cr as h. T he w i dow s of the thr ee dece ased ci vi l i an ob s e r v e r s b r o u g h tc o n s o l i d a t e d s u i t s a g a i n s tt he U n i t e d St a t e s . I n t h e p r e t r i a l s t a g e s t h e p l a i n t i ffs m oved, und er Rul e 34 of the Feder al R ul es of C ivil P roc ed u re, fo r pro d u cti o n o f th e A irF o rce ’s offi ci al acc i denti nves t i gat i on r epor tand the st at em ents of the t hree survi ving crew m em bers, t aken i n conne c t i o n wi th the off i ci al i nves t i gat i on. T he G overnm entm oved t o quas h t he mot i on, claimi ng t hatt hes e mat t er s w er e pr i vi l eged agai ns tdi s cl os ur e pur s uantt o A i rFor ce r egul ati o ns pr om ul gat ed underR

. S. § 161. T he D i s t r i ctJ udge s usta i ned pl ai nt i ffs ’ m ot i on, hol di ng t hatgood caus e forpr oduct i on had bee n s how n. T he clai m of pr i vi l ege unde rR

. S. § 161 wa s r e j e c t e d o n t h e p r e mi s e t h a tt h e To r tCl a i ms A ct, in m aki ng t he G overnm entl i abl e “i n t he s ame manner ” as a pr i vat e i ndi vi dual had w ai ved anypr i vi l ege ba s ed upon exe cut i ve co n t r ol over go vernm ental do cum ents
. S h o rt lyaf

ter th is de cisi o n , th e D istri ct C o u rt re c e iv e d a lette r f

ro m th e S e c r e ta r y o f

th e A ir F o rc e , sta tin g th a t “it h a s b e e n d e ter m in e d th a t it w o u ld n o t b e in th e p u b lic inte re st t o f u rn ish th is r e p o r t.
. . .” T h e c o u rt a llo w e d a re h e a rin g o n its ear l i eror der , and att he r ehea r i ng the Secr et aryof8 th e A irF o rc e f

ile d a f o rm a l “ C la im o f

P ri v ile g e .” T hi s document r epea t ed the pr i orclai m bas ed gener al l yon R

. S. § 161, and then stat ed thatt he G overnm ent fur t her obj ect ed t o pr oduct i on of the d o c u m e n ts “ f

o r th e re a so n th a t th e a irc ra f t in ques t i on, t ogetherw i t h t he per s onnel on boar d, w e re e n g a g e d in a h ig h lyse c re t m iss io n o f th e A ir F o rc e .” A n a f

f id a v it o f th e Ju d g e A d v o c a te G en e r a l , Uni t e d St a t e s Ai rFo r c e , was a l s o f i l ed w i t h t he cour t , w hi ch ass er t ed thatt he demanded m a ter ial c o u ld n o t b e f

u rn ish e d “ w ith o u t se riou sly hamper i ng nat i onal s ecur i t y , fl y i ng s afe t yand the devel opm entof hi g hl yt echni cal and s ecr et m i l i t aryequi pm ent
. ” The sa m e af fi davi toffe r ed t o p roduce t he thr ee surviv in g crew m em bers, w i t ho ut cost , for exam i nati on byt he p l ai nti ffs. T h e w itn e ss e s w o u ld b e a llo w e d to re f re sh th e ir m em ori es from any st at em ent m ade by t hem to th e A ir F o rc e , an d a u th o r iz e d to tes tifya s to a ll m a tte rs e x c e p t th o s e o f

a “ c la s s if

ie d n a tu re .” T he D ist ri ctC our tor der ed the G overnm entt o pr oduce t he document s i n or dert hatt he courtm i ghtdet er m i ne w hether t heycon t ai ned pri vil eged m at t er. T he G ov ernm ent decl i ned , so th e c o u rt e n ter e d a n o rd e r, u n d e r R u le 3 7 (b )(2 )(i), th a t th e f a c ts o n th e iss u e o f

n e g lig e n c e w o u ld b e tak e n a s e sta b lish e d in pl ai nt i ffs ’ favor

. A ft era hear i ng t o det er m i ne damages , fi nal ju d g m e n t w a s e n ter e d f o r th e p lain tiff

s. T h e C o u rt o f

A p p e a ls aff i r m ed, b o th as t o t he s how i ng of good ca us e forpr oduct i on of the do cum ents , and as t o the ult i m at e dis po si t i on of the case as a cons equenc e of t he G overnm ent ’ s r efus al t o pr od u ce t he9 do cum ents
. Id . a t 2 -5 (c ita tio n s a n d in te rn a l q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ). In th e p re se n t ac tio n , P a ly a L o e th e r is jo in e d b yP a tricia H err i ng, W i l l i am P al y a, R o b er tPal y a, Susa n B r aunerand C ather i ne B r auner . Pat r i ci a H err i ng i s one of t he w i do w s w ho wa s a p a r t yi n t h e o r i g i n a l a c t i o n . T h e o t h e r s a r e h e i r s o f t h e t wo ot her , now dece as ed, w i do w s in the or i gi nal act i on. T he s ubs t ance of t hei rcompl ai n t is t hatt he purpor t edl yt op s ecr et d o c u m e n ts f

o r w h ich th e G o v e rn m e n t cla im e d a m ili tar yse c re ts pr i vi l ege di d notactual l y r evea l anyt hi ng of a s ens i t i ve natur e. T h e yc laim , the re f

o re , tha t G o v e rn m e n t o f f ic e rs f ra u d u len tly m i s r epr es ent ed the natur e of t he r epor ti n a w ayt hatcaus ed the w i dow s t o s et t l e thei rcas e forl es s t han i t s ful l val ue. Ap p e l l a nt s fi r s tpu r s ue d thi s c urr e ntc l a i m i n th e S u p r e me C our tbya mot i on s eeki ng l eave t o fi l e a pe t i t i on fora w r i tof err orcor am nobi s . T he C our tdeni ed thi s m ot i on on Ju n e 23, 2003. I n r e H err i ng, 539 U

. S. 940 ( 2003)

. T hen, on O ct ober1, 2003, A ppel l ant s fi l ed thi s act i on in t he D i s t r i ctC our tfort he E as t ern D i s t r i ct of Penns y l vani a, pr es er ved by t he savi ngs c lau se o f R u le 6 0 (b ) o f

th e F e d e ra l R u les o f

C iv il P ro c e d u re , to s etas i de the 50- y ear - ol d s et t l ement agr eem en t on the gr ounds t hatt he s et t l ement w as pr ocur ed byfr aud upon t h e court
. T he A ppel l ant s s ought t he di ffe r ence betw een the s et t l ement amount and j udgm entor i gi nal l yent er ed by the D i s t r i ctC our t( w hi ch w as l at er s et as i de by t he Supr eme C our t )

. T he G overnm entt hen f iled a m o tio n to d ism iss f o r f a ilu re to sta te a c laim u n d e r R u le 12( b) ( 6)

. T he D i s t r i ct C our tgr ant ed the G overnm ent ’ s 12( b) ( 6) m ot i on. I tdet er m i ned thatt her e w as no fr aud bec aus e the10 document s , r ead i n t hei r hi s t or i cal cont ext , coul d have r evea l ed s ecr et i nfor m at i on aboutt he equi pm entbei ng t es t ed on the pl ane a n d , o n a b ro a d e r re a d in g , th e c laim o f p riv ileg e re f e rre d to b o th th e m is s io n a n d th e w o rk in g s o f th e B -2 9 . W e a f

f ir m . III

. T h e D is trict C o u rt h a d ju risd ictio n su p p lem e n tal to its exer ci s e of j ur i s di ct i on o v er t he or i gi nal cl ai m i n R eynol ds v. U n it ed S tat es, N o . 1 0 1 4 2 (E

. D

. P a.) (fil ed S ep tem b er 2 7 , 1 9 4 9 ), and B r aunerv. U ni t ed St ates, N o. 9793 ( E

. D

. Pa. ) ( fi l ed J une 21, 1949)

. See 28 U

. S. C

. § 1367 ( 2 000)

. W e have j ur i s di ct i on p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1

. I V. T he G overnm entur ges us t o appl y an abus e of di s cr et i on s t andar d of r evi ew t o ourr evi ew of the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s gr antof its R u le 1 2 (b ) ( 6 ) m o tio n a n d p ro v id e s s e v e ra l ar g u m e n ts in f a v o r o f d e p a rt u re f

ro m th e n o rm a lly a p p lic a b le s ta n d a rd

. I ni t i al l y , w e must be cl eart hatw e ar e nother e r evi ew i ng a R u le 6 0 (b ) m o tio n . T h e p ro v isio n o f R u le 6 0 (b ) c o m m o n ly k n o w n a s the “ sa v in g s cla u se ” sta tes : “ T h is r u le d o e s n o t lim it t he pow e r of

a c our t t o e nt e r t ai n an i nde pe nde nt ac t i on to r el i eve a par t yfr om a j udgm ent , or der , orpr ocee di ng, ort o gr ant r el i ef t o a defe ndant notactual l yper s onal l ynot i fi ed as pr ovi ded i n T i t l e 28, U

. S. C

. , § 1655, or t o s et as i de a j udgm entforfr aud u p o n the c o u rt .” R u le 60 (b), Fe d era l R u les o f C ivil P roc ed u re ( emphasi s added)

. I t fol l ow s t hat an i ndepende ntact i on al l egi ng fr aud upon the court i s compl et el y di s t i nct fr om a m ot i on under11 R u le 6 0 (b ). S e e G e o . P . R e in tje s C o ., 7 1 F .3 d a t 4 8

. T he G overnm entcont ends t hatbeca us e A ppel l ant s s eek a n e q u i t a b l e r e me d ya n c i l l a r yt o t he pr i o rs u i to f r e l i e f f r o m a pr i orj udgm entof the D i s t r i ct C our t w e shoul d t r eatt hi s act i on as i f i tw er e a r evi ew of deni al of a R u le 60( b) m ot i on and t herefore r eview for abu se of d i scr e tion. W e w i l l no tt reatas a R ul e 60( b) m ot i on s om ethi ng t hati s e x p l i c i t l ypr es er ved w i t hout b e in g in c lu d e d b yth e te x t o f R u le 6 0 (b ). W e a re s im ila rl y u n p e rs u a d e d b y th e G o v ern m en t’ s ar gum entt hatbeca us e R ul e 60( b) al l ow s r el i ef more br oad than an i ndepende ntact i on for f r aud upon the court , and determ i nati on s based on R ule 60 (b) are revi ew ed on l yfor abu se of d i s c r e t i o n , s e e Pr i d g e n v . Sh a n n o n , 3 8 0 F. 3 d 7 2 1 , 7 2 5 ( 3d C ir

. 2 0 0 4 ), an ind ep en d en t acti o n fo r f rau d u p o n the c o u rt sh o u ld b e re v iew e d a t lea st a s d e f e re n tially . F u n d a m e n tally , this a r g u m e n tc o n f

u s e s s t a n d a r d o f

r e v i e w w i t h b u r d e n o f p r o o f

. We ar e qui t e ca pabl e of t aki ng ful l acc ountof the narr ow cr i t er i a for reli ef p rese n t i n an ind ep en d en t ac ti o n fo r f rau d u p o n the c o u rt w i t houtal t er i ng t he F eder al R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e. U ndert he nor m al de novo r evi ew t hatappl i es t o a di s t r i ct cour t ’ s gr antof a Ru l e 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) mo t i o n t o d i s mi s s f o r f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m, we can de t er m i ne w hethert he A ppel l ant s have a l l eged f act s w hi ch, i f t rue, pr ovi de a bas i s forr el i ef unde rt he verydemandi ng l egal s ta n d a rd f

o r f ra u d u p o n th e c o u rt
. Fi nal l y , t he G overnm entci t es U ni t ed St at es v. B uck, 281 F. 3d 1336, 1342- 1343 ( 10t h C i r . 2002) , for t he pr opos i t i on t hat i ndepende ntact i ons t o r eopen a j udgm entbas ed on fr aud upon th e c o u rt a re re v iew e d f o r a b u se o f

d isc re tio n . W e n o te in iti a lly12 t hatB uck i s notbi ndi ng on t hi s C o u rt
. E v en i f i tw er e, i tdoes nots uppor tth e G overnm ent ’ s pr opos i t i on beca us e i tr evi ew ed a c ase in a m u ch d iffe ren t p roc ed u ral p o sture than the o n e a t bar. In B u c k , th e c o u rt c o n v e rte d a m o tio n b ro u g h t u n d e r R u le 60( b) ( 6) al l egi ng frau d upon t he courti nt o an i ndepende nt ac ti o n an d then rev iew ed fo r a b u se o f d iscreti o n . Instea d , w e a re f a c e d w ith th e sim p le re v iew o f a d istric t co u rt’s g ra n t o f a R u le 12( b) ( 6) m ot i on t o di s m i s s forfai l ur e t o s t at e a cl ai m t o w hi ch de novo r evi ew cl ear l yappl i es . See I n r e A dams G ol f, I nc. Sec. L it ig., 3 8 1 F

. 3 d 2 6 7 , 2 7 3 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 4 ). V. A s n o ted a b o v e, w e w il l em p loya d em an d ing stan d ard fori ndepende nt act i ons al l egi ng fr aud upon the courtr equi r i ng: ( 1) an i nt ent i onal fr aud; ( 2) by an off i cerof the court ; ( 3) w hi ch i s di r ect ed att he courtit self; a n d ( 4) t hati n fac tdece i ves t he c o u rt. W e a g re e w ith th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls o f

th e E ig h th C irc u it t hatt he fr aud on the c our tm us tcons t i tut e “e gr egi ous m i s conduct

. . . s uch as br i beryof a j udge orj ur yorfabr i cat i on of evi dence bycouns el

. ” I n r e C oor di nat ed Pr etr i al Pr ocee di ngs i n A nt i bi ot i c A nt i t rus tA ct i ons , 538 F. 2d at195 ( ci t at i ons o m itted). W e m u st d ec ide w h ethe r th e U n it ed S tat es A irF o rce ’s asse rt ion o f m il it arysec rets priv ile g e o v er the ac cide n t r ep o rt des cr i bi ng t he ca us e of t he B

- 29’ s cr as h atW ay cr os s , G eor gi a, w as fr aud up on t he co urt
. In order t o d o thi s w e l oo k caref u lly att w o document s centr al t o t he or i gi nal l i t i gat i on: t he form al affi davi tand cl ai m of pr i vi l ege f i l ed byt hen- Secr et aryof the A i rFor ce, T h o m as K

. Fi nl et t erand an a ffi davi tof then- J udge A d v o c a te G e n e ra l o f

th e A irF o rc e , R e g in a ld H a rm o n .13 B efor e enga gi ng i n a det ai l ed i nqui r yi nt o t he s ubs t ance co n tai n ed in the se d o cu m en ts i t is im p o rt an t t o n o te t h e f o rm a n d a u th o rsh ip o f

th e d o c u m e n ts. B o th a re f o rm a l d o c u m e n ts m ak ing asse rt ion s to the co u rtu n d er o ath a u th o red b ylaw y ers w h o w e re p a rticip a tin g in th e lit ig a tio n th o u g h n o t d ire c tly repr esent i ng t he U nit ed S t at es. Au t h o r s h i p i s i m p o r t a n t b e c a u s e , a s n o t e d a b o v e , we agr ee w i t h t he court s anal y zi ng fr aud upon t he cour t w hi ch have re q u ir e d th e f

ra u d to b e p e rp e tr a te d b ya n “ o f f ic e r o f th e c o u rt .” See G eo. P. R ei nt

j es , 71 F. 3d at49; D emj anj uk, 10 F. 3d at348; L o ck w o o d v . B o w les, 4 6 F

. R

. D

. 6 2 5 , 6 3 2 (D

. C

. C ir

. 1 9 6 9 ). T hese cases hav e no t ed, and w e agree, t hat per j ury bya w i t ness i s notenough t o cons t i tut e fr aud upon the court
. See e. g. , G eo. P. R ei nt j es C o. , 71 F. 3d at49 ( “The poss i bi l i t yof per j ur y , even c o n c e rte d , is a c o m m o n h a z a rd o f th e a d v e rsa ryp ro c e ss w ith w hi ch l i t i gant s ar e equi pped t o deal t hr ough di sco veryand cr os s - exami nat i on, and, w her e w arr ant ed, m o t i o n f o rr el i ef f r om ju d g m e n t to th e p re sid in g c o u rt. W e re m e re p e rju ry su f f icie n t to o v erride th e c o n side rab le va lue o f f inalityaf ter the statu tory tim e p e rio d f

o r m o tio n s o n a c c o u n t o f f ra u d h a s e x p ire d , it w o u ld u p en d [R u le 60 ’s] care fu l balan ce . ”) (cit ati o n s o m itted). T h e G o v ern m en t seek s to d ef ine o ff icer o f th e c o u rt n a r r o w lyto e x c lu d e S e c re tar yF in lette r a n d Ju d g e A d v o c a te H ar m on beca u se, t hough l aw y er s , t heydi d notr epr es entt he U ni t ed St at es i n t he l i t i gat i on s ought t o be r eopene d. A l t hough i ti s t rue thatFi nl et t er and H ar m on di d notr epr es entt he U ni t ed S tate s in th e lit ig a tio n , th e y d id re p re se n t th e U n ited S tate s A ir Fo rce ’s cl ai m of pr i vi l ege ove ra documentcentr al t o t hat l i t i gat i on. T heyw er e att or ney s m aki ng a form al cl ai m of pr i vi l ege on be hal f of the G overnm ent
. W e agr ee w i t h t heIn th is v iew th a t w e tak e , w e e x ten d to A p p e llan ts th e f u ll 2 r eac h o f cas e l aw t hatpr es cr i bed r equi r ed el ement s of “f r aud upon t he court
. ” W er e w e t o pr ocee d ot herw i s e, t he fol l ow i ng di s cus s i on w oul d nothave be en nece s s aryt o aff i r m t he ju d g m e n t o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt
.

14 D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s concl us i on t hatt he Supr eme C o u r tdepende d up o n Fi nl et t erand H ar m on’ s “expe r i ence , expert i s e and t rut hful nes s ” in it s deci s i on t o r ever s e and r emand. H err i ng v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , N o . C i v . A

. 0 3

- C V

- 5 5 0 0

- L D D , 2 0 0 4 WL 2040272, *6 n. 3 ( E

. D

. Pa. Sept

. 10, 2004)

. G i ven thes e uni que fac t s , w e fi nd i ti nappr opr i at e t o deci de the ca s e on t he bas i s t hat S ec retaryF inlett er a n d Ju d g e A d v o ca te G en er a l H a rm o n w ere n o t o f f ice rs o f th e c o u rt. 2 T h e sta tu re o f th e d o c u m e n ts in w h ich th e a lleg e d ly frau d ul entr epr es ent at i ons w er e made i s al s o i m por t ant
. T he re p re se n tati o n s w e re m a d e in a n a f f id a v it o f Ju d g e A d v o c a te G ener al H ar m on and an aff i davi tand form al cl ai m of pr i vi l ege of S ecret aryF i nlett er bot h m ade u nd er oat h. T o all ege thatfal se sta tem e n ts w e re m a d e in th e se d o c u m e n ts is to a lleg e p e rju ry ; a par t i cul ar l ys er i ous t ype of pe r j ur ybeca us e of the hi gh degr ee of fa ith the C o u rtp lace d in the tru th o f F in let ter an d H arm o n ’s r epr esen tat ions. I n a per j ur ycas e, t he pl ai nt i ff mustpr ove that th e a lleg e d lyp e rju rio u s s tate m e n t is n o t su b jec t to a lit e ra l, t rut hful i nt erpr et at i on. U ni t ed St at es v. T onel l i , 577 F. 2d 194, 198 ( 3d C i r . 1978)

. A s expl ai ned above, pr oof of pe r j ur yi s not e no ug h t o e s t a bl i s h f

r a ud up on t he c ou r t
. Se e e . g. , G e o. P. R ei nt j es C o. , 71 F. 3d at49. I n t hi s cas e, how ever , an ac cus at i on o f p erjuryfo rm s the b asis o f th e f rau d u p o n the c o u rtclaim

. In s uch a c as e, pr oof of per j ur y , t hough nots uffi ci entt o pr oveE ven i f w e conc l uded thatt he A i rFor ce’ s cl ai m of pr i vi l ege 3 coul d notbe r ead t o i nclude concern aboutr evea l i ng t he w or ki ngs of the B

- 29, w e w oul d be obl i gat ed t o cons i der w h ethe r ce rt ain in fo rm ati o n co n tai n ed in the ac cide n t r ep o rt actual l yr evea l ed s ens i t i v e i n f o rma t i o n aboutt he mi s s i on and the el ectr oni c equi pm enti nvol ved. Th e a cci dentr epor tr evea l ed, for e x a m p le , tha t th e p rojec t w a s b e in g c a rrie d o u t b y“ th e 3 1 5 0 th E l ectr oni cs Squadr on, ” thatt he mi s s i on r equi r ed an “ ai r cr aft capa bl e of dr oppi ng bom bs ” and that t he mi s s i on r equi r ed an ai rpl ane c apabl e of “ oper at i ng atal t i tudes of 20, 000 fee tand above. ” ( R epor tof Speci al I nves t i gat i on of A i r craftA cci dent I nvol vi ng T B

- 29- 100B S N o. 45 -21866. ) O urconcl us i on t hat in f o rm a tio n a b o u t th e w o rk in g s o f th e B -2 9 w a s in c lu d e d w ith in th e c la im o f

p riv ileg e m a k e s it u n n e c e ss a ryto e n g a g e in th is anal y s i s . I f such an anal y s i s w er e nec es s ary , i tw oul d r equi r e a cert ai n amount of def er en ce t o t he G overnm ent ’ s pos i t i on beca us e of the nea ri m pos s i bi l i t y of det er m i ni ng w i t h anyl evel 15 fraud u po n the cou rt , beco m es a necessar y el em ent w hich m ust be met befor e goi ng on t o m eet t he addi t i onal r i gor s of pr ovi ng f ra u d u p o n th e c o u rt. M o v i n g t o o u re x a mi n a t i o n o f t h e s u b s t a n c e o f

t h e t wo d o c u me n t s r e l i e d o n b yt h e Ap p e l l a n t s , i ti s a p p a r e n tt h a twe m us tdet er m i n e w hethert heyar e s us cept i bl e t o a trut hful in ter p re tatio n . M o re sp e c if ica lly , ca n th e y b e re a so n a b ly re a d to i ncl ude w i t hi n t hei rs cope a n as s er t i on of pr i vi lege o v er the w or ki ngs of t he B

- 29? I f t hey can, t he A ppel l ant s ’ as s er t i on t hat t he A i r For ce cl ai m of m i l i t arys ecr et s pr i vi l ege mi s r epr es ent ed the n a tu re o f th e inf

o rm ati o n co n tai n ed in the ac cide n t r ep o rt o v e r w h ich th e p riv ileg e w a s a ss e rte d f a lls a p a rt. 3of ce r t ai nt yw hat s eemi ngl y i ns i gni fi cant pi ece s of i nfor m at i on w oul d have be en of ke en i nt er es tt o a Sovi et s py fi ftyy ear s ago. See e. g. , K ni ghtv. C

. I

. A

. , 872 F. 2d 660, 663 ( 5t h C i r . 1989) (“ [ E ]v e n th e m o st a p p a re n tly in n o c u o u s [ in f o rm a tio n ] c a n y ield val uabl e i nt el l i gence . ”); C

. I

. A

. v. Si m s , 471 U

. S. 159, 178 (1 9 8 5 ) (“ F o re ig n in tellig e n c e se rv ice s h a v e b o th th e c a p a c ityto g a th e r a n d a n a ly z e a n yin f o rm a tio n th a t is in th e p u b lic d o m a in a n d t h e s u b s t a n t i a l e x p e r t i s e i n d e d u c i n g t h e i d e n t i t i es of in tellig e n c e so u rc e s f

ro m se e m in g lyu n im p o rta n t d e tails. In th is cont ext , t he verynatur e of the i nt el l i gence appar atus of any countr yi s t o t r yt o fi nd outt h e co n ce rns of other s ; bi t s and pi ece s of dat a ‘m ayai d i n pi eci ng t ogetherbi t s of other inf o r m at i on even w hen the i ndi vi dual pi ece i s notof obvi ous im p o rt an ce in it self.’” (cit ati o n o m itted). 16 W e conc l ude t hat t he s t at ement s of Fi nl et t er and H ar m on can be r eas onabl yr ead t o as sert pri vi l ege ove rt echni cal i nfor m at i on aboutt he B

- 29. T he form al cl ai m of pr i vi l ege made byS ecret aryF i nlett er s t at es: T he def endantfur t her obj ect s t o t he pr oduct i on of t hi s r epor t , t og etherw i t h t he s t at ement s of w itn e ss e s, f

o r th e re a so n th a t th e a irc ra f t in ques t i on, t ogetherw i t h t he per s onnel on boar d, w e re e n g a g e d in a c o n f

id e n tial m iss io n o f th e A ir For ce. T he ai rpl ane l i kew i s e car r i ed conf i dent i al equi pm enton boar d and anydi s cl os ur e of it s m i s s i on ori nfor m at i on conce r ni ng it s o p er at i on o r p e rf o rm a n c e w o u ld b e p re ju d icia l to th is d e p a rtm e n t an d w o u ld n o t b e in th e p u b lic in ter e st.17 ( C l ai m of Pr i vi l ege byt he S ec ret aryof the A i rFor ce (em p h asis ad d ed ). ) A ppel l ant s and the G overnm ent di s agr ee on w hethert he p ron o u n “it s” re fe rs on lyto the elec tr o n ic e q u ipm en t on b o ard ort he B

- 29 ai rpl ane i t s el f. W hi l e both r eadi ngs ar e conc ei vabl e, th e G o v e rn m e n t’s is m o re lo g ica l. It is m o re n a tu ra l to re f e r to an ai rpl ane’ s m i s s i on t han t o ref er t o t he conf

i dent i al e q u ip m e n t’s m iss io n . A t th e v e ry lea st, th e sta tem e n t is re a d ily s u s c e p tib le to th e re a d in g p re f e rr e d b yth e G o v e rn m e n t. A ppel l ant s ’ cont ent i on aboutt he meani ng of “i t s ” i n t he cl ai m of pri vi l ege i s al s o compl et el yunder cutbyt he s t at ement in th e ir o rig in a l S u p re m e C o u rt b rie f th a t “th e S e c re tar yf

o r A ir [sic] in h is cl aim o f p ri v il eg e states (R

. 2 2 ) th at ‘an yd iscl o su re of it s (the a irp lan e’s) m iss io n o r in f o rm a tio n c o n c e rn in g its oper at i on or per for m ance w oul d be pr ej udi ci al ’ ” and thati tw as “obvi ous t hat t he A i r For ce cons i der s t hatal l det ai l s conce r ni ng t h e o p e r a t i o n o f t h e a i rp l a n e a r e ‘ c l a s s i f i e d

. ’ ” ( Br i e f

for R esp o n d en ts su b m itted t o the S u p rem e C o u rt at 3 5 n .4 (em p h asis ad d ed ) (pa ren thetical alt era ti o n in the o ri g inal). ) N o th in g in Ju d g e A d v o c a te G e n e ra l H a rm o n ’s a f f id a v it contr adi ct s t he G overnm en t’ s cont ent i on t hatt he cl ai m of pr i vi l ege r efe r r ed t o t he B

- 29 i t s el f r athert han s ol el yt he s ecr et m is s io n a n d e q u ip m e n t. * * * * * B eca us e ther e i s an obvi ous l yr eas onabl e trut hful i nt erpr et at i on of t he s t at ement s m ade byt he A i rFor ce, A ppel l ant s ar e unabl e t o m ake outa cl ai m fort he per j ur yw hi ch, as expl ai ned above, for m s t he bas i s fort hei rfr aud upon the c ou rt cl ai m . W e, t herefore, con cl ud e t hat A pp el l ants fai l ed to18 s t at e a c l ai m upon w hi ch r el i ef c an be gr ant ed. W e w ill a f

f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.