F OR P UB LIC AT ION



### U N I TED STA TES C O U R T O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E N IN T H C IR C U IT

U NI TED S T A T ES O F A M ERI CA ,

Plaintif f-Appellee ,

v.
S I DE MAN & B A N CR O FT , L L P,

Defendant-

Appellant

. No. 11-15930

D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00736- WHA

OPI NI ON

Appea l from the United States District Court fo r t he No rt he rn Di str ic t of

Ca lif or nia Wil liam Alsup, District J udg e, Presiding
Argued and Submitted Se pte mbe r 1 3, 20 12 —Sa

n F ra nc isc o, Ca lif

or nia Filed January

8, 2013

Be fore : J . Clifford Wallace, Susan P. Gra ber,
and Mars ha S. B e rzo n, Cir c uit

Judg e s. Opinion by

J udg e WallaceU NI TED S T A T ES V

. S I DE MAN & B A N CR O FT , LLP 2

T hi s s ummary cons t i t ut es n o part of t he op i ni on of

t he cour t

. I t ha s * b een p repa red b y co urt s t af f f o r t he co nveni ence o f

t he read er. SUMMAR

Y *

Tax The panel aff

irmed t he dis trict court’s order e nforc ing a n I nte rn a l Re ve nu e Se rv ic e a dmi nis tr a tiv e summo ns in
connec tion with a criminal investigation of an individual taxpay er.
Certain of ta x pay er’ s documents had made their wa y from her r esidenc e to appe llant, h er c ounsel for the I RS criminal investigation. The panel held that the “ fore g one conc lusion”
e xce pti on to t he F if th Ame ndme nt ap pli e d to th e do c ume nts be c a us e , b e fo re the I RS is su e d th e su bp oe na , it

kn e w w ith
rea sonable pa

rticularity of the e x istence a

nd appellant’ s po sses sio n o f t

he do c ume nts and

c ou ld i nd e pe nd e ntl y establish their authe nticity based on ta x pay er’ s tax prepa rer ’s fa mil iari ty wi th t he m.

CO UN SEL

J ay R. W eill (argued), Sidem an & B ancr oft L L P, San F ra nc isc o, Ca lif

or nia , f or Ap pe lla nt.

Tamara W. A sh fo rd , D e pu ty

As sis tant At tor

ne y Ge ne ra l, Washington, D.C.; Michae l J

. Haung s (ar g ued) a nd J ohn A. Du deck, Jr., United States Depa rtment of Just ice, Tax Division, W ashing ton, D.C., for Appe llee.U NI TED S T A T ES V

. S I DE MAN & B A N CR O FT , LLP 3

OP IN ION

WAL L ACE, Circuit J udg e:
Sideman & B ancr oft, L L P (Sideman) appe als from the district court’s orde r enf

orcingan Interna l Revenue Service (I R S ) admini strative summons. We have jurisdiction under 28 U. S.C. § 1 29 1, and

we a ff ir m.

I.

The I RS i s curr ently

undertaking a

criminal investig ation of Mar y Nolan to deter

mine whether

she attempted to e vade or def eat he r tax li abilities or made a false de clar ation under penalty of per jury rel at ed to tax y ear s 2005 to 2008. As part of that in ve sti g a tio n, the I RS ob ta ine d a se arc h w arra

nt t o locate N olan’s tax documents for those y ear s. On Octobe r 13, 2010, the I RS ex ecute d the sea rch w arr ant , l o o k ing f

or the do c ume nts in N ola

n’ s r e sid e nc e , b us ine ss, and c ar. Th e I RS failed to locate the docume nts it sought wh i l e ex ecutingthe
sear ch wa rra nt but did find refe renc es to Nolan’s income tax pr e pa re r, a c c ounta

nt M ary F ou ts. As the next step in the investigation, Specia l Ag ent Mark Pahnke contac ted Fouts. Fouts indicated that Nolan had g iven he r t a x doc ume nts fo r t he y e ars 20 07 and 20 08 . F ou ts explained that she no long er ha d the documents as she had delivere d them to Nolan’s civil tax attorney , Richard Guada g ni. Special Ag ent Pahnke subsequently contac ted Guada g ni, who informed him that he ha d gi v en the documents he r ece ived from F outs to J ay R. Weill, partne r at Sideman, Nolan’s counsel for the I RS criminal investigation.U NI TED S T A T ES V

. S I DE MAN & B A N CR O FT , LLP 4 Spe c ia l A g e nt P ahn ke the n d ra ft e d a summo ns to o btai n the re cords f

rom Side m an

. Special Ag ent Pahnke identifie d the documents he so u g ht from Sideman in his summons ba se d o n th e de ta ile d d e sc ription of the do c ume nts g ive n to him by Fouts. F outs confirmed that she had g iven Speci al Ag ent Pahnke a

detailed de scription of the doc uments she tur ne d o ve r t o G ua da g ni.

On Oc tob e r 2 7, 20 10 , th e I RS is su e d a su mmo ns to Sideman seekingthe 2007 and 2008 tax d o cu ments turned
ov e r b y F ou ts v ia

Gu a da g ni. T he summo ns sp e c if ic a lly
re qu ir e d Si de man to pr od uc e the fo llo wi ngdo c ume nts :
FOR THE YEARS: 2007–2008 Documents in y our custody or control r elative to the financ ial transac tion of:

MARY NOLAN THE L AW OFF I CE OF MARY NO L AN MA RY NO L ANTRU ST

I n cl u d i n g b u tn o tl i m i t edt o t h e f o l l o wi n g:
Che c k Ca rb on s ( du pli c a te s) Clie nt R e c e ipt s File F olders of Expenses Pay me nt R e c e ipt s Qu ic kB oo ks Pr int ou ts Client Billing Rec ords Rental Property

Records Tax Returns and Supporting Sche dules M o n t h l y C l i en tBi l l i n gs Check L edg ersU NI TED S T A T ES V

. S I DE MAN & B A N CR O FT , LLP 5 Cop ie s o f B ill s Day time Planners Cr e dit Card State me nts Pe rs on a l Tax Re late d E xpe ns e s ( ie : me dic a l & de nta l)

I nc lud e d in

the fo llo wi ngc on ta ine rs : 4 larg e banke r boxes 3 larg e ac cordion folde rs
Sideman ref

used to produce these documents—which
measure six ty -six inches if stacke d on top of o n e another,
acc ording to Sideman—beca use, Side ma

n a ll e g e s , p r o d

u c tion would violate Nolan’ s Fifth Amendme nt rig hts. I n response , the I RS fi le d a pe tit ion in the No rt he rn Di str ic t of

Ca lif or nia
se e kin g e nf

or c e me nt o f t

he summo ns

.
I n s up po rt of its pe tit ion to en fo rc e the summo ns , th e I RS of fe re d a de c lara tio n f ro m Fo uts re g ard ing he r wo rk on be ha lf of Nolan. In her de clar ation, Fouts stated tha t s h e took possession of Nolan’s 2007 a nd 2 008 tax records on September 14, 2010. G uadag ni delivere d addi t i onal re cords to her a few day s later. F outs beg an re viewing Nolan’s 2007 and 2008 tax recor ds on October 1. On October 4, Fouts spent
a dd iti on a l ti me re vie wi ngthe ta x re c or ds

. F ro m Oc tob e r 4 to October 12, Fouts complete d her revie w of Nola n’s 2009 tax
r e c o r d s an d

f i n i s h e d t h e r e tu r

nf o r t h a ts a m e y e ar

. In finalizing Nolan’ s 2009 return, F outs also r eviewe d Nolan’s 2008 tax records to “make sure that certa in information from 2008 was c arr ied over

p ro p er l y to 2009, and [she also] revie wed the 2007 r ecor ds for c onsistency .”U NI TED S T A T ES V

. S I DE MAN & B A N CR O FT , LLP 6 Throug h this revie w process, Fouts became ve ry familiar wi th N ola n’ s tax doc ume nts . I n h e r d e c laratio n s ub mitte d to the district court, Fo u t s stated that Nolan’ s tax rec ords wer e distinct fora number

of re asons. Fir st, the rec ords re flec ted that Nolan did not operate her law pra ctice a s a cor poration, wh ic h w a s unu su a l to F ou ts be c a us e mos t pr a c tit ion e rs wi th
a s i m i l ar l e v e l o f i n c o m e o p e r a t e t h e i r p r a c t i c e s t h a tw ay. Second, F outs identified th e am o unt of monthly income for N o la n ’ s la w p r a c ti c e d

u r in g th e y e ar s 2 0 0 8 to 2009, observingthat it was “fa irly consistent” month to month. Fouts also re called a

nd sta ted the law pr actice ’s income f or the y ear 2007. Third, Fouts stated that No l an p ai d all of her ind ivi du a l and

bu sin e ss e xpe ns e s w ith c he c ks tha t sh e wr ote and sig ned by

hand. F outs also expl ained that Nola n maintained handwr itten c heck reg isters and chec kbooks that produce d car

bon copies. F ourth, Fouts reported that Nola n treated her

worke rs as indepe ndent contract o rs rather than
e mpl oy e e s. F if

th, F ou ts s tate d th a t N ola n a nd he r p ara le g a ls kep t tr a c k o f t

he ir bil la ble tim e via

ha nd wr itt e n n ota

tio ns in appointment books. Nolan’s staff would then conv er t the handwr itten notes to client bills usi ng a QuickB ooks software prog ram. A pa

per c opy of ea ch bill would be place d in a folder ke pt for each client. L astly , Fouts re ported that Nola n had numer ous residential prope rties, including renta ls, a nd a
vacation home.

Fouts also conf

irmed in her de clar ation that she had g iven Nolan’s tax rec ords to Guada g ni after becomingconce rned that they we re cover ed by the I RS sum mons, which Nolan had told her about. She further decla red that she lear

ned that Gua d a g n i d id n o t g iv e th e d o c u me n ts to th e I RS a s she had tho ug ht h e wo uld

bu t in st ead g a ve the m to Sid e man. F ou ts al s o d escr ibed how she g ave a “deta iled descr iption” of the 20 07 and 20 08 do c ume nts to Spe c ia l Ag e nt Pahnk e . Sh e a lsoU NI TED S T A T ES V

. S I DE MAN & B A N CR O FT , LLP 7

c on fi rm e d th a t th e summo ns , re pr od uc e d ab ov e , c on fo rm s to the desc ription she g ave to Speci al Ag ent Pahnke a nd “ac curately summarizes the documents [she reviewe d] i n the
course of [her] work for Nolan, down to the ty pe of boxes and folders the documents we re c ontained in on Octobe r 13, 2010 wh e n [sh e ] saw the m la st. ” F ou ts expl a ine d th a t sh e “ is
c on fi de nt t

hat if [she ] saw N ola

n’ s 200 7– 20 08 do c ume nts ag ain, [she] coul d identify and authe nticate them, ba sed on the per sonal knowledg e [she] gaine d from re viewing and workingwith them and base d on their distinc t i ve char acte ristics and conte nts.”

The district cour

t gr anted the I R S ’s petition to enforc e, finding t h at the summonsed documents fe ll within t he

“ fo re g on e c on c lus ion ” exce pti on to t he F if th A me ndme nt. The district cour

t limi ted the scope of t he summons, however , by striking the la

ng uag e “inc luding but no t l i mited to the fo llo wi ng ” fr om t

he summo ns and

re placi ngit w ith

“ sp e c if ic a lly the fo llo wi ng .” Sid e man n owa pp e a ls.

II.

“We re view de novo a

district court’s a

pplication o f t he Fifth Ame ndment privileg e agai nst self-incr imination.” United States v. Bright , 596 F.3d 683, 690 ( 9th Cir. 2010). “Whether the exis tence of d o cu ments is a fore g one conclusion is a question of f act, whic h we r eview f

or cle ar err or.” Id. We a lso re vie w f or cle ar e rr or

a fi nd inga s to wh ether the authenticity of docume nts is a foreg one conclusion. United States v. Doe , 465 U.S. 605, 613–14 (1984).

“ Th e F if th Am e ndme nt g ra

nts pe rs on s th e pr ivi le g e no t to pro v id e th e St a te w it

h [s e lf

- in c r im in a to r

y ] e v id e n c e of aU NI TED S T A T ES V

. S I DE MAN & B A N CR O FT , LLP 8

testimonial or com municative natur e.” Id. at 692 (a lteration in o ri ginal) (i nte rn a l qu otatio n ma rk s o mitte d) . T his pr ote c tio n e xten ds no t on ly to or a l qu e sti on ing bu t als o applies to preve nt an individual from havingto produce documents for

investigati ve bodies if the a ct of produc tion it s e lf w o u ld b e te s ti monia l. Id. a t 69 1. Th is p ro te c tio n a lso extends to prevent an individual’s attorne y from being
c omp e lle d to pr od

uc e do c ume nts if

that pr od uct ion w ou ld violate the individual’s Fif th Amendment rig hts. I n Fisher v. United States , 425 U.S. 39 1 (1 9 76), the Supreme Court
e xpla ine d th a t w he re an indi vid ua l trans fe rs do c ume nts to h is or her attorney s to obtain leg al assistance in tax inv e s ti g a ti o n s , th o s e d o c u me n ts , “ if u n o b ta in a b le by
summons fr o m the client, ar e unobtainable by summons direc ted to the attorne y

by rea son o f t he attorne y -client privileg e.” Id. a t 40 5. Ac c or din g ly , Side man doe s not h a ve to pr od uc e the ta x re c or ds if

do ingso vio late s N ola

n’ s F if th Am e ndme nt r ig hts

. Sideman contends that, here , the ac t of producingNolan’s 20 07 and 20 08 ta x d oc ume nts wo uld be te sti mon ia l in violation of Nolan’s F ifth Amendment rights. Production of do c ume nts may

be te sti mon ia l be c a

us e [t]he a c t of pr od

uc ing e vid e nc e in re sp on se to a subpoena

. . . has communicative aspec ts of its own, wholly aside from the c ontents of the paper s produced. Compli ance with the subpoena ta citly

conce des the exis tence of the paper s demande d and their possession or
c on tr ol b y the ta xpay e r. I t a lso wo uld ind ic a te the ta xpay e r’ s bel ie f that the pa pe rs are tho se descr ibed in the subpoena

.U NI TED S T A T ES V

. S I DE MAN & B A N CR O FT , LLP 9

Id. at 410. Neve rtheless, “ wher e ‘[t] he existence a nd location of the paper s are a fore g one conclusion and the taxpay er a dds littl e or nothing to the sum total of the Go v ernme nt’s information by conce ding that he in f act has the paper s[,]

. . . enfor ceme nt of the summons’ does not touch upon
co nstitut ional rig hts.” Bright , 596 F.3d at 692 (quoting Fisher , 425 U.S. at 411). F or the “ fore g one conc lusion
e xce pti on to a

pp ly , th e g ov e rnme nt m us t e sta bli shits ind e pe nd e nt k

no wl e dg e of

thr e e e le me nts : th e do c ume nts ’ exis tence , the documents’ a uthenticity

and re spondent ’s possession or control of the documents.” Id.

We now consider whether the di strict court clearly

err ed in d e te r mi n in g th a t t

h e f o r e g o n e e xc e p ti o na

p p li e s h e r e

. We look first at the existence and posse ssion elements and then
a d dr e s s a u t h e n t i c i t y.
A.

The Gove rnment “‘ bear s the burde ns of produc tion and proof on the que stions of . . . possession[ ] an d ex istence of the summoned documents.’” In re Grand J ury Subpoena, Dated Apr. 18, 2003 , 3 8 3 F. 3 d 905, 910 (9th Cir. 2004) (q u o t i n g In re Gr a n d Jury Proc eedings, Subpoe nas for Do c um e nts , 4 1 F .3d 37 7, 38 0 ( 8th Cir . 1 99 4) ). Th is i s a highly fac t-intensive inquiry

that looks at the “‘qua

ntum of inf or ma tio n po sse sse d by

the g ov e rnme nt before it issued the rele vant subpoen a.’” Id. (q u o t i n g Un ite d S tates v . H ub be ll , 167 F.3d 552, 569 ( D.C. Cir. 1999), aff’d , 530 U.S. 27 (2000))

. He re , th e “ qu antum of

inf or matio n” po sse sse d by the I RS prior to its issuance of the summons as t o t h e ex istence a nd possession of the summonsed d o cument is substantial. TheU NI TED S T A T ES V

. S I DE MAN & B A N CR O FT , LLP 10

I RS l ear ned that F outs had bee n reta i n ed to pre pare Nolan’s amende d incom e t ax returns f or the y ear s 2007 and 2008. Fouts identified f

or t h e I RS t he docume nts that Nolan had g iven her to pr epar e the 2007 and 2008 amende d returns. The do c ume nts F ou ts i de nti fi e d b eca me the lis t of

do c ume nts Special Ag ent Pahnke identifie d in the summons. Further, F ou ts t old

the I RS th a t these do c ume nts we re c on ta ine d in fo ur ba nk e rs bo xes a

nd thr e e a c c or dio n f

old e rs

. Th e I RS ha d p re c ise kn ow le dg e of the lo c a tio n o f t

he se bo xes and fo lde rs and the do c ume nts c on ta ine d th e re in. I RS ag ents lear

ned fr om Fou ts that she delivere d the tax records to Nolan’s civil attorne y , Guadagn i

. Special Ag ent Pahnke contac ted Guada g ni and lear ned that Gua dag ni had given the do c ume nts to N ola

n’ s c ri minal attorn e y

a t Sid e man. Thus , fr om i ts i nv e sti g a tio n, the I RS kn e w w ith“ re a so na ble particula rity ” the e x istence a

nd Sideman’s possession of Nolan’s 2007 a

nd 2008 tax records prior t o i s suing the
summons. S

e e I n r e G r a n d J

u r y S u b p o e n a , D a te d Apr. 18, 2003 , 383 F.3d at 910. The district court’ s fin dings of
e xiste nc e and

po sse ssi on

we re no t c le arl y

e rr on e ou s.

B.

“The authenticity

prongof t h e fore g one conc lusion doctrine r equire s the g overnme nt to establish t h at it can ind e pe nd e ntl y

ve ri fy tha t th e c omp e lle d d oc uments ‘a re in fac t what they

purport to be.’ ” Id. at 9 1 2 (q u o t i n g United States v. Stone , 976 F.2d 909, 911 (4th Cir. 1992) ). We have explained that not only must the Government show that it can independe ntly

establ i sh that the summonsed documents ar e what t h ey p u rport to be, it must demonstrate that it is not “compe lling the [ t ax p ay er] to use his discretion in selec ting
and a sse mbl ingthe re sp on siv e do c ume nts , a nd the re by

ta c itl yU NI TED S T A T ES V

. S I DE MAN & B A N CR O FT , LLP 11

pro v id in g id e n ti f

y in g in f o r mati o nth a t i s n e c e s s ar

y to the g overnme nt’s authentication of the subpoena ed docume nts.” Id.

We theref

ore nowturn to whether

the Gover

nmen t has
me t it s b ur de n o f d e mon strat ing tha t it c an in de pe nd e ntl y verify that the s u m monsed tax documents “are what they purp or t to be ” tha

nk s to F ou ts’ s f

a mil iarity wi th t ho se do c ume nts . D ur inghe r i nte rv ie w with I RS a g e nts , F ou ts “gav e t hem a de tailed desc ription of the 2007–2008 documents that [she] had in [ her] possession.” I t is a ppare nt from F outs’s decla

ration submitted to the district court that sh e wa s v e ry

fa mil iar w ithNo lan’ s tax re c or ds . F ou ts descr ibed key details about t he records, including that Nolan ran he r business as a

sole proprie torship; that Nolan’s law prac tice grosse d consistent income from month to mont h; that Nolan paid her individual and business e x penses with handwr itt e n c he c ks sh e sig ne d he rs e lf ; that No lan c la ssi fi e d th os e workingfor he r as indepe ndent contra ctors rath er tha n employ ees; t h at Nolan re corde d her billable time in a

“ da y pla nn e r” a pp oin tme nt b oo k a

nd us e d Q uic kB oo ks to
cre ate a bill for eac h client; and that Nolan owned seve ral
re nta l pr op e rt ie s in

a dd iti on to h er re sid e nc e . F ou ts a lso descr ibed the conta iners in w h i ch thos e docume nts were stored: four larg e banker box es and three lar ge accor dion fo lde rs

. Sid e man c on te nd s th a t F ou ts c ou ld not have su ff ic ie ntl y familiarized her self with the six ty -si x inch stack of documents t hat comprise Nolan’s 2007 and 2008 tax records beca use, Sideman asserts, Fouts spent only forty -five minutes
r e v i e w i n g t h o s e d o c u m e n t s

. W e ar e n o tp e r s u a d e d b y thi s argument for two r easons: F irst, our revie w of the r ecor d
reve als that Fouts spent more than forty -five minutesU NI TED S T A T ES V

. S I DE MAN & B A N CR O FT , LLP 12

revie wing the summonsed rec ords. The state ment of ac count Fouts sent to N olan, which itemiz es the time Fo u t s spent revie wing Nolan’s tax rec ords, does state that on October 1, 2010, Fouts spent 0.75 h o u rs revie wing Nolan’s 2007 a nd 2008 tax records. But the statement of a ccount a lso contains
an O c tob e r 4 , 2 01 0 e ntr y of 1. 75 ho ur s in dic a tin g that in addition to perfor

ming other

tasks, Fo uts continued her
re v i e w o f t h e p r i o r y e ar s t a x d o c u m e n t s o n t h a t d a y . F ou ts also dec lare d that from Oc tober 4 to Oc tober 12, 2 0 1 0 , she pr e pa re d No lan’ s 20 09 ta x r e tur n. As pa rt of that pr oc e ss, Fou t s compare d the 2009 tax records to Nola n’s 2008 and 2007 tax records to check for consistency . Thus, althoug h the prec ise amount of time Fouts spen t re v i ewingthe 2007 and 20 08 ta x re cord s is no t c le ar, sh e did sp e nd mor e tim e revie wing the summ o nsed docume nts than the forty -five min ute s Sid e man a lle g e s. Second, as pointed out a bove, F outs can provide
nume ro us de ta ils a

bo ut N ola

n’ s tax re c ords. I

nd e e d, du e to her e x tensive knowledg e of Nolan’s tax re cords as desc ribed in her de clar ation, there is a foundation for F outs’s statement that she is “conf

ident that if [she] s aw No lan’s 2007–2008 do c ume nts a g a in, [she ] c ou ld i de nti fy and a uth e nti c a te the m, based on the persona l knowle dg e [she] gaine d from re viewing and wor king w ith them and b ased on the ir distinctive char acte ristics and co n t en ts.” I n addition, for many of the items, the Governme nt does not need to rely solely on Fouts’s ability to authenticate the documents. I ndeed, Nolan’s billing
and pa y me nt records co uld

be ve ri fi e d b y

c omp ari ngtho se rec ords and Nola

n’s bank r ecor ds. See B right , 5 9 6 F.3d a t 69 3; United States v. Sc hlansky , 70 9 F .2 d 10 79 , 1083 (6th Cir . 1 98 3) . T hu s, re g ardl ess of the e xac t amou

nt o f t ime Fouts s p e n t r e v ie w in g th e s u mm o n s e d d o c u me n ts , theU NI TED S T A T ES V

. S I DE MAN & B A N CR O FT , LLP 13

Go ve rnme nt h a s e sta

bli sh e d th a t it

is able t o in de pe nd e ntl y a uth e nti c a te the summo ns e d r e c or ds

. Sid e man a lso c on te nd s that No lan sh ou ld be g ra nte d “ a c tof-pr oduction” immunity

prior to Sideman’s beingcomp elled to turn over Nola

n’s tax rec ords, some of whic h wer e pr e pa re d b y No lan hers elf

. In s up po rt

of its argume nt, Sideman cites to a 2001 unde r-se al proc eedingin the N o rt h e r nD i s t r i c to f C a l i f

o r n i a t o w h i c h S i d e m anw a s a

p art y. See In re Grand Jury Subpoe na to Richard Sideman, Sideman & Bancroft LLP, Dated Ju n e 14, 2001 , No. CR-01-219- MI SC-MHP (N.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2001). I n that proce eding , the district court ruled that Sideman’s p ro d uction of ce rtain tax
r e c o r d s o f

i t s c l i e n tw o u l d

“ i mp l i c i t l y

a u t h e n t i c a t e ” t h os e rec ords, i.e. , act a s an admission that the d o cuments were authentic. Id. at 6. Acc ording ly , the district court e x plained that be fo re it c ou ld c omp e l pr od uc tio n o f t

he docume nts , it had to g rant Sideman’s c lient immuni ty and agree to a pr ote c tiv e or de r f

or bid din g the Go ve rnme nt fr om re fe rr ingto the produc tion. Id. a t 10 . Si de man a rgue s t hat t

he 20 01 c a se su pp or ts t he c on te nti on

that pr od uc ti o n of No lan’ s d oc ume nts wi ll “ c on sti tut e an a dmi ssi on tha t th e speci fi c do c ume nts soug ht in the summons were in S ideman’s possession . . . and that they there fore exis t and ar e authe ntic.”

Th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de c isi on in the 20 01 pr oc e e din g re sts on the conc lusion that because the ac countant could not independe ntly

authenticate ce rt ain tax records pr oduced by the so le pr op ri e tor sh ip, the fo re g o n e c on c lus ion e xce pti on

did not a pply to those rec ords. Howeve r, mere ly beca u s e N o l an prepa red some of the records pe rsonally is not necessa

rily an imp e dim e nt to a

pp lying the fo re g on e c on c lus ion e xce pti on

to th e F if th A me n dme n t p r o te c ti o na g a in s t t e s ti mo nial production. See D oe , 4 65 U. S. at 61 4 n .1 3 ( e xpla ini ngtha t, i nU NI TED S T A T ES V

. S I DE MAN & B A N CR O FT , LLP 14

the c on te xt of

subp oen a s f

or do c ume nts fr om s ole proprietor ship companies, the Gove rnm ent was not “for e c lo s e d

f r o m .

. . p r o d

u c in g e v id e n c e th a t p o s s e s s ion,
e xiste nc e , a

nd a uth e nti c a tio n [of the su

bp oe na e d d oc ume nts ]
wer e a ‘ fore g one conc lusion’”). Unlike the ac countant in the 2001 case Sideman cites, F outs can independently verify that the tax documents are what they purport to be : Nolan’s 2007
and 20 08 ta x re c or ds . N oth ingfu rt he r i s r e qu ir ed to authenticate the docume nts a n d thus, Si deman’ s production is not a nece ssary

link in the chain of e vidence for the d o c u me n ts to b e a dmi s s ib le

. See, e .g. , Fe d. R. Evid. 901(b )( 1) , ( 4) . A c c or din g ly , th e dis tr ic t c ourt did no t e rr in
e nf or c ingthe summo ns de sp ite the Go ve rnme nt’ s f a ilure to g r an t N o l ana c t

- o f

- p r o d u c t i o ni m m u n i t y. Finally , the Gover n m ent has met it s burden of demonstrating that it “can a uthenticate the docum en t s . . . descr ibed in the [summ o n s ] without the identify ing i n fo rmation that [Nolan] would provide by using h[er] knowledg e and judg ment to sift through, s el ect, assemble, and produc e the doc uments.” In re Grand J ury Subpoena, Dated Apr. 18, 2003 , 383 F.3d at 913. Sid em an argues that the district court’s or der w o u l d require Nolan to re view the
summons and numerous documents in Sideman’s possession and then produce only the documents specific ally listed in the summons. The district court limited t h e scope of the summons to i nclude on ly those items identified in the summons. Thus, Nolan w ill not have to look at any document n o t found i n the identified ba nkers boxes and
acc ordion f o ld e r s

. M oreove r, Sideman’s a rg ument that Nolan will have to sort throug h the documents in the banker s box es and ac c o r d io nf

o ld e r s is mo o t b e c a

u s e th e G o v e r

n me nt ag ree d in open cour

t that the deliver

y of the four

banker s b o xe s an d th

r e e la r g e a c c o r d io n f

o ld e r s id e n ti f

ie d in theU NI TED S T A T ES V

. S I DE MAN & B A N CR O FT , LLP 15

su m m o n s , w i t h t h e i r

c o n t e n t s a s d e l i v e r e d

t o S i d e m an , w i ll
a de qu a te ly

c omp ly wi th the summo ns . A s a re su lt, pr ior

to Sideman’s production of t he documents, Nolan will not have to “discriminate a

mong docu m ents, there by identifying information re levant to the authenticity of the doc uments.” Id. (quotin g In re Grand J ury Proce edings: Subpoena for Do c um e nts , 41 F.3d 377, 380 ( 8th Cir. 1994)).

Acc ording ly , we conclude that the district court’s f inding that the I RS could independently authenticate Nol an’s 2007 and 2008 tax recor ds contained in the identified collection of bo xes a nd fo lde rs c ur

re ntl y he ld by Sid e man w a s n ot c le arl y e rr on e ou s.

B a se d o n th e fa c ts f

ound , whi c h we ho ld w e re no t c le arl y e rr on e ou s, we con clu de that th e dis tr ic t c ourt did no t e rr in applying the fore g one conc lusion ex ce p t ion when enf orcing Sid e man’ s c omp lia

nc e wi th t he summo ns

. AF F IRMED.