T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l y c onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T I n r e : GR AN D J UR Y S UB P OE NA . KA T HE R I NE OL E JNI K, W itn e s s - A p p e lla n t, v. UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, A pp el l ee . N o. 12- 35811 D . C . N o. 2: 12- G J - 00145 ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on R i c ha r d A . J one s , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r15, 2012 ** S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: W A R D L A W , C L IF T O N , an d B Y B E E , C i rcu i tJu d g es. K atheri ne O l ej ni k app ea l s the di stri ctcourt ’ s S ept em ber 27, 20 12 orders d e n y in g h e rm o tio n to q u a s h th e g r a n d ju ry s u b p o e n aa n d h o ld in g h e rin c iv il 

# FI LED OC T 22 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS12- 35811 2 c ont e m pta nd or de r i ng c onf i ne m e ntunde r28 U . S . C . § 1826. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on o v e rth i s ap p e a l p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U . S. C. § § 1 2 9 1 a n d 1 8 2 6 ( b ) , a n d w e a f f i rm. W e r evi ew the di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of the m ot i on t o q uash a gra nd j ury s u b p o e n af

o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . See In re G ra n d Ju ry Su b p o en a (M

a rk T o rf / T o rf E n v tl. M g m t.) , 35 7 F . 3d 90 0, 90 6 (9th C i r. 20 04 ). W e a l so re vi ew the di stri ct c o u rt’s f in d in g o f c o n te m p t f

o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . See In re G ra n d Ju ry P roce edi ngs (

L ah ey ) , 9 1 4 F .2 d 1 3 7 2 , 1 3 7 3 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) . W e r e v ie w th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s f a c tu a l f in d in g s f o rc le a re rr o r . Se e I

n r e M. H. , 648 F . 3d 1067, 1070- 71 ( 9th C i r . 2011) . W e r e vi e w m i xe d que s t i ons of l a w a nd f

a c tde n o v o . Se e id . W e r e v ie w th e c o n s titu tio n a lity o f as ta tu te d e n o v o . See U ni ted State s v . C abac c ang , 3 3 2 F .3 d 6 2 2 , 6 2 4 - 2 5 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( e n b a n c ) . A fe dera l grand j ury s ub po enae d O l ej ni k t o t es t i fyi n a cr i m i nal i nv es t i gat i on . O l ej ni k m ov ed t o q uash the subp oena, bu tthe di stri ctcourtdeni ed th e m o t i o n . O l ej n i kap p eared b efo re th e g ran d j u ry an d an sw ered so m e q u est i o n s, butr e f us e d t o a ns w e rothe r s . T he di s tr i c tc ourtf ound O l e j ni k i n c i vi l c ont e m pt a nd or de r e d he rc onf

i ne d. O l e j ni k f i r s tc ont e nds tha t18 U . S . C . § 6003 vi ol a t e s the s e pa r a t i on of pow e r s doc tr i ne be c aus e i tm a nda t e s tha tadi s tr i c tc ourti s s ue a n i m m uni ty a nd12- 35811 3 c om pul s i on or de ri f

the gove rnm e ntc e rt i f

i e s tha tthe w i tne s s ’ s t e s t i m ony m a y be n e c e s s a ry to th e p u b lic in te r e s t. F e d e r a l s ta tu te s e n

jo y as tr o n g p r e s u m p tio n o f c o n s titu tio n a lity . U

ni ted S ta te s v . DiRe , 3 3 2 U .S . 5 8 1 , 5 8 5 ( 1 9 4 8 ) ; Sch w en k v. H a rt f o rd , 204 F . 3d 1187, 12 04 (9th C i r. 20 00 ). W e f i nd O l ej ni k’ s argum entthat18 U . S . C . § 6 00 3 v i ol at es th e s e p a r a tio n o f

p o w e r s u n a v a ilin g . See C l i nton v. Jones , 520 U . S . 681, 703 ( 1997) ( “ [ S ] e pa r a t i on of pow e r s doe s notm e a n tha tthe br a nc he s oughtt o ha ve no p a rtia l a g e n c y in , o rn o c o n tr o l o v e rth e a c ts o f e a c h o th e r .” ) . O l ej ni k al so cont ends thatthe di stri ctcourt ’ s orderi m perm i ss i bl y vi ol at ed h e rF ir s t A m e n d m e n t r ig h t to a s s o c ia tio n , a n d th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ab u s e d its di sc re t i on w hen i thel d h eri n ci vi l cont em pt . O l ej ni k argues thatt o com pel her t e s t i m ony the G ove rnm e ntm us tm e e tthe s t a nda r d s e tf orth i n B urse

y v . U ni ted Stat es , 4 6 6 F . 2 d 1 0 5 9 (9 th C i r. 1 9 7 2 ), b ecau se th e su b p o en a co l l i d es w i th h er F i rst A m en d m en tri g h t s. W e c on cl ud e, ho w ever , thatthe B urse y a n a ly s is is n o t im p lic a te d b y th is appe a l . O l e

j ni k ha s f

a i l e d t o s how tha the rF i r s tA m e ndm e ntr i ghtt o a s s oc i a t i on has bee n i nfri ng ed up on . In the al t ernat i ve, even i f O l ej ni k’ s r i gh t s w er e i m pl i c a t e d, w e he l d i n In re G randJuryP roce edi ngs ( Scarce ) , 5 F . 3d 39 7 (9th C i r. 1 9 9 3 ), th ata F i rstA m en d m en tp ri v i l eg e ap p l i es o n l y i n l i m i t ed ci rcu m st an ces,12- 35811 4 na m e l y w he n “ the que s t i ons w e r e pos e d i n ba d f a i th, [ w he n the que s t i ons ] ha d a t e nuous r e l a t i ons hi p t o the s ubj e c tof the i nve s t i ga t i on, [ w he n] l a w e nf or c e m e nt di d n othave a l egi t i m at e nee d for the i nform at i on , or [w hen the qu es t i on s] w er e po se d as am eans of hara ss m ent . ” Id . a t 4 0 0 . N o n e o f th o s e c o n d itio n s ap p ly h e r e . T he gr a nd j ury i s s e e ki ng the i de nt i ty of thos e pe r s ons w ho va nda l i z e d the N a k a m u r aC o u rth o u s e o n M a y 1 , 2 0 1 2 . T h is in f o rm a tio n d o e s n o t im p lic a te O le jn ik ’s F ir s t A m e n d m e n t r ig h t to a s s o c ia tio n . A c c o r d in g ly , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id no tabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng the m ot i on t o q uash O l ej ni k’ s grand j ury s u b p o e n a . See M

a rk T o rf , 3 5 7 F .3 d a t 9 0 6 . F in a lly , O le

jn ikc o n te n d s th e d is tr ic t c o u rt s h o u ld n o t h a v e f o u n d h e rin c iv il cont em ptbecause s he answ er ed al l “ l egi t i m at e” qu es t i on s w hen she appeare d be f or e the gr a nd j ury . T hi s a r gum e nti s una va i l i ng. T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d not abuse i t s di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng the m ot i on t o q uash and O l ej ni k ref used t o answ er c e rt a i n gr a nd j ury que s t i ons aboutthe c or e i s s ue i n the i nve s t i ga t i on, w hi c h di d not i m pl i ca t e herF i rs tA m endm entri gh tt o ass oci at i on . A cc ordi ng l y, the di stri ct court ’ s orderfi nd i ng O l ej ni k i n ci vi l cont em ptof courtand o rder i ng her c o n f in e m e n t is a f

f irm e d . O l ej ni k’ s m ot i on t o sea l the op eni ng bri ef and excerptof re cord i s deni ed as u n n e c e s s a ry .12- 35811 5 O le jn ik ’s m o tio n to p r o c e e d in f o rm ap au p e r is is g r a n te d . T h e C le rks h a ll am en d th e d o ck ett o refl ectth i s st atu s. T he ope ni ng a nd a ns w e r i ng br i e f s , r e c e i ve d on O c t obe r9 a nd O c t obe r12, 2 0 1 2 , r e s p e c tiv e ly , a r e d e e m e d f ile d . A F F I R M E D .