N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. JEFFREY S. B UR

UM , De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. Nos. 14-55640

14-56282 D.C . No. 5:11 c v-01570- SJO-OP
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a ls from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia S. Jam e s Ote ro, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 7, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : TASHIM A , SILVER M AN, a nd GR AB ER , C irc uit Judge s . Je ffre y B urum a p p e a l s the distric t c ourt’ s orde rs de ny ing his Fe de ra l R ule of C rim ina l Proc e dure 41(g) m otion for the re turn of prope rty an d gra nting the gove rnm e nt’ s m o tion for a n orde r a uthoriz ing provision of se i z e d ha rd c opy doc um e nts to sta

te prose c utors. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e 

# FIL ED MAY06 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.re ve rse the orde r de ny ing the R ule 41(g) m otion a

n d re m an d for furthe r proc e e dings. W e va c at e the orde r a uthoriz ing provision of ha rd c opy doc um e nts to sta te prose c utors, a

nd dismi ss a s m oot the a

ppe a l from

tha t orde r. I. In 2011, thegove rnm e nt initia te d a fe de ra l inve stiga

tion a ga inst B urum

for suspe c te d politic a l c orruption a nd bribe ry . As pa

rt of the inve stiga

tion, the gove rnm e nt e xe c ute d se arc h w a rrants a t B urum ’ s re side n c e and offic e building a nd
se iz e d 52 digital de vic e s a nd 37 ite m s of non-digital e vide nc e . The gove rnm e nt ultim ate ly c onc lude d its inve stiga

tion without filing a

ny fe de ra l c ha

rge s a g a inst B urum . Howe ve r, a

sta te grand jury

indic te d B urum

ba s e d on simila

r a lle gations. The sta te c rim ina l c a s e is c urre n tly pe nding. B urum file d se ve ra l m otions in district c ourt to c om pe l the gove rnm e nt to
re turn his prope rty

and/or to c onduc t a

n a ppropria te sc ope an d attorne y -c l ie nt privile ge re vie wof the se iz e d e vide nc e . The gove rnm e nt e ve ntua l ly re turne d a ll of B urum ’ s origina l prope rty but re ta ine d c opie s of the e vide nc e . In M ay 2012, the gove rnm e nt turne d ove r to sta te prose c utors a

t le a st two disks tha

t we re se iz e d pursua nt to thefe d e ra l wa

rrants. B urum

the n file d a

R ule 41(g) m otion for the
re turn or de struc tion of a ll c opie s of his prope rty re ta i ne d by

the gove rnm e nt. W ithout holding a

n e vide ntia

ry he aring, the distric t

c o urt de c line d

to e xe rc ise 2e quita

ble jurisdic tion ove r the m otion; a lte rnative ly , it de nie d the m otion on the
m e rits. The gove rnm e n t the n file d a m otion re que s ting thedistric t c o urt’ s a uthoriz ation to turn ove

r a ll se iz e d ha

rd c o py doc um e nts to thesta t e prose c utors, whic h the c ourt gra

nte d. B urum

a ppe a l s both orde rs. I I. Unde r R ule 41(g), a

c ourt m ay

e xe rc ise its e quita

ble jurisdic tion to gra

nt a
m otion for there turn of prope rty by a “ pe rson a ggrie ve d by

an unla wful se arc h a

nd
se iz ure of prope rty

or by the de priva

tion of prope rty .” Fe d. R . C rim . P. 41(g); se e Ramsde n v . Unite d State

s , 2 F.3d 322, 324 (9th C ir. 1993). Thec ourt m ust re c e ive
e vide nc e on a

ny fa c tua l issue ne c e ssa

ry to de c ide the m otion. Fe d. R . C rim . P. 41(g). This c ourt re vie ws a distric t c ourt’ s de c ision to e xe rc ise its e quita ble jurisdic tion unde r R

ule 41(g) for a

n a buse of disc re tion. R amsde n , 2 F.3d a t 324. A distric t c ourt’ s de c ision not to hold a n e vide ntia

ry he aring on a m otion to suppre ss is a lso re vie we d for a n a buse of disc re tion. C

tr. Art Gallerie

s-Haw aii, Inc
. v . Unite d State

s , 875 F.2d 747, 754 (9th C i r. 1989).

III. The distric t c ourt de c line d to e xe rc ise e quita b le jurisdic tion ove r B urum ’ s R ule 41(g) m otion without holding a n e v ide ntia

ry he aring. W e c onc lude tha t this
wa s a n a buse of disc re tion. 3The distric t c ourt rule d on the m otion without re solving se ve ra l outsta nding fa c t ua l dispute s on whic h

B urum ’ s m o tion dep e nds, inc luding whe the r the gove rnm e nt c onduc t e d a

n a de quate re vie w of the se iz e d digita l da ta to de te rm ine whe the r those data

we re within thesc ope of the se arc h wa rrant, whe the r the gove rnm e nt de s troy e d out-of-sc ope and privile ge d e vide nc e , a nd whic h e vide nc e the g ove rnm e nt ha s turne d ove r to the sta te prose c utors. W e the re fore re ve rse the orde r de ny ing the R ule 41(g) m o tion a

nd re m and for furthe r proc e e dings. On re m and, the distric t c ourt sha ll c onduc t a n e vide ntia

ry he aring to de te rm ine : (1) whic h doc um e nts (inc luding c opie s) the gove rnm e nt still ha s in its posse ssion; (2) whe the r those doc um e nts fa ll within the sc ope of the
se arc h wa rrants; (3) whe the r those doc um e n ts a re prote c te d by

the attorne y -c lie nt privile ge ; a

nd (4) ba se d on the c ourt’ s findings on sc ope and privile ge , whic h doc um e nts the gove rnm e nt is re quire d to re turn or de stroy . B e c a use the c ourt’ s findings on rem a n d will ne c e ssa

rily a ffe c t wha

t e vide nc e the g ove rnm e nt m a

y provide to the sta

te prose c utors, we va c at e the orde r a uthoriz i ng the whole sa le provision of docum e nts to sta te prose c utors, a

nd dismiss
a s m oot the a

ppe a l from

tha t orde r without re a c hing them e rits.

4In No. 14-55640, the orde r of the distric t c ourt is RE V E R SE D and RE M A NDE D. In No. 14-56282, the

orde r of the distric t c ourt is V ACAT E D and the a ppe a l is DISM ISSE D.

5