N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
In re : GR AND JUR

Y INVESTIGATION,
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Appe lle e , v. DOE APPELLANTS AND C ORPOR ATIONS, R

e sponde n t s - Appe lla

nts. No. 15-50450

D.C . No. 2:15-c m -01014-UA-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Philip S. Gutierre z , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 7, 2015 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : GOULD a

nd B ER ZON, C irc uit Judge s, a

nd STEEH, ** Se nior Distric t Judge
. 

# F IL ED
JAN 14 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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. ** The Honora

ble Ge orge C aram

Ste e h III, Se nior Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of M ic higa n, sitting by

de signa tion.This a ppe a l c onc e rns the distric t c ourt’ s orde r granting the gove rnm e nt’ s e x pa rte m otion to c om

pe l produc tion of a

ttorne y -c l ie nt doc um e nts. In a n opinion file d c o nc urre ntly

with this me m orandum

disposition, we va c a te the orde r and
re m and for the distric t c ourt to inspe c t the subpoe na e d doc um e nts in c am e ra to de te rm i ne whic h

spe c ific doc um e nts c onta in c o m m unic a tions in furtheranc e of the
c rim e -fraud a

nd m ust be produc e d. In this m e m orandum disposition, we

a ffirm that we have jurisdic tion to re vie w this issue , a nd we a ffirm

the distric t

c ourt’ s
c onc lusion tha

t the gove rnm e nt produc e d suffic ie nt e vide nc e to invokethe c rim e fraud e xc e ption to a

ttorne y -c l ie nt privile ge . 1. W e have inte rloc utory jurisdic tion ove r this a

ppe a l unde r Pe rlman v

. Unite d State s , 247 U.S. 7 (1918), a s to the Doe a ppe lla nts. 1 Se e Unite d State

s v . K rane , 625 F.3d 568, 571–73 (9th C ir. 2010). Thegove rnm e nt’ s a rgum e nt on
a ppe a l tha t the Doe s ha

ve not e sta

blishe d tha

t the y we re c lie nts “ with re spe c t to the FDA c orre sponde n c e at issue ,” is inc onsiste nt with its a l le gat ions in the

distric t
c ourt tha t the Doe s c o n trolle d the C orporation e n titie s a nd dire c te d the ir la

wy e rs to
use fa lse sta

te m e nts to dissua

d e the FDA from

inve stiga ting its a d ve rtise m e nts. If

1 All doc um e nts in this m a tte r have be e n file d unde r se a l to prote c t the se c re c y of the ongoing gra nd jury proc e e dings. Thetrue nam e s of the a ppe lla nts, a ppe lla nt c o rporations, a

n d the i r form e r attorne y s a re not re ve a le d

in this m e m o randum
. 2we a c c e pte d the gove rnm e nt’ s pre m i se on a ppe a l tha t the re c ord doe s not show who the c lie n ts we re , we would be c om pe lle d to re ve rse the distric t c ourt’ s c rim e fraud finding, be c a

use the c rim e -fraud e xc e p tion re quire s the gove rnm e nt to prove that “ the c lie nt ha

rbore d a n im p rope r purpose ”

— “ it is thec l ie nt’ s knowle dge and inte nt tha t a re re le va nt.” In reN

apste r, Inc . C

opy right Litig. , 479 F.3d 1078, 1090 (9th C ir. 2007), a b rogate d in part on othe r grounds by

Mohawk Indus., Inc . v . C arpe nte r , 558 U.S. 100 (2009). 2. For the re a s ons give n by the distric t c ourt, we a gre e tha t the gove rnm e nt pre se nte d suffic ie nt e vide nc e to e sta b lish a prim a fa c i e c a se that the Doe s sought to use

the ir la wy e rs “ in furthe ranc e of a nd . . . suffic ie n tly

re late d to ongoing”c rim e s, i.e ., fa l se sta te m e nts to a

n d obstruc tion of theFDA. In re Grand J ury Proc e e dings , 87 F.3d 377, 382 (9th C ir. 1996); s e e 18 U.S.C . § 1001. The gove rnm e nt pre se nte d suffic ie nt e vide nc e to e sta b lish a t le a st “ re a s ona

ble c a use to be lie ve ,” In re Grand J

ury Proc e e dings , 87 F.3d a

t 382, tha t the FDA ha d jurisdic tion to inve stiga

te the m isle a ding a dve rtise m e nts unde r 21 U.S.C . § 352(q), whe the r or not the m e d ic a l c e nte rs we re subje c t to there q uire m e nts of 21 U.S.C . § 352(r). Assum ing without de c i ding tha t the lite ra l-truth de fe nse of Bronston v
. Unite d State s , 409 U.S. 352 (1973), a

pplie s he re , the gove rnm e nt pre se nte d suffic i e nt e vide nc e to e sta b lish re a sona

ble c a use to be lie ve tha

t the Doe s dire c te d 3the i r a ttorne y s to m a k e fa lse sta

te m e nts with the inte n t to obstruc t the FDA inve stiga tion. 3. W e re

je c t a ppe lla n ts’ argum e n t

tha t the distric t c ourt c o m

m itte d
re ve rsible e rror by

not indepe nde ntly

a ddre ssing thework produc t privile g e . Our de c isions ha

ve indic a te d tha

t the c rim e -fraud e xc e ption a pplie s e qua lly to work produc t a nd attorne y -c lie nt privile ge s. Se e , e .g. , Unite d State

s v . C hriste nse n , 801 F.3d 970, 1004 (9th C ir. 2015); In reGrand J ury Proc e e d i ngs , 867 F.2d 539, 540–41 (9th C ir. 1989); se e also In re Grand J u ry Proc e e dings #5 Empane lle d J anuary 28, 2004 , 401 F.3d 247, 251–52 (4th C ir. 2005). 2 W e AFFIRM the distric t c ourt’ s c onc lusion tha t the gove rnm e nt e sta

blishe d
a prim a fa c ie c a se to invokethe c rim e -fraud e xc e ption.

2 All othe r argum e nts m a de by the pa rtie s not a d dre sse d by this m e m o randum o r the c onc urre ntly -file d opinion ha

ve be e n c onside re d by

the pa ne l and re je c t e d
. 4