Document: 491 U.S. 554 109 S.Ct. 2619 105 L.Ed.2d 469 UNITED STATES, Petitionerv.Frank S. ZOLIN et al. No. 88-40. Argued March 20, 1989. Decided June 21, Syllabus The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), as part of its investigation the tax returns L. Ron Hubbard, founder Church Scientology (the Church), filed in Federal District Court a petition to enforce summons it had served upon Clerk Los Angeles County Superior demanding that he produce documents, including two tapes, his possession conjunction with pending suit. and Mary Sue intervenors state-court action respondents here, intervened oppose production materials. They claimed, inter alia, IRS was not seeking materials good faith attorney-client privilege barred tapes' disclosure. argued, among other things, tapes fell within exception for communications furtherance future illegal conduct—the so-called "crime-fraud" exception—and urged listen making determination. In addition, submitted declaration by special agent which included partial tape transcripts lawfully obtained. court rejected respondents' bad-faith claim ordered five requested but conditioned enforcement order placing restrictions dissemination documents. also ruled need be produced since they contained privileged which, quoted excerpts revealed, crime-fraud did apply. request on ground been abandoned favor using agent's basis determining question. Appeals affirmed conditional-enforcement order. As issue, agreed would have without power grant IRS' demand camera review because Government's evidence crime or fraud must come from sources independent tapes. Reviewing (a excluded transcripts), Court's determination inapplicability exception. Held: 1. Insofar upheld order, Appeals' judgment is an equally divided Court. P. 561. 2. appropriate circumstances, allegedly may used determine whether fall Pp. 562-575. (a) Rule Evidence 104(a), provides bound rules respect privileges when existence privilege, does prohibit use review. 565-570. (b) However, before district engage at party opposing present sufficient support reasonable belief such reveal establishes exception's applicability. Once this threshold showing made, decision rests sound discretion court. 570-572. (c) any relevant nonprivileged evidence, obtained, meet showing, even if "independent" contested uses term. 573-574. (d) On remand, should consider refusal toto justified manner presented preserved request. If properly preserved, court, has evidentiary Court, discretion, 574-575. 809 F.2d 1411 (CA9 1987), 842 1135, 850 610 1988), part, vacated remanded. BLACKMUN, J., delivered opinion all Members joined, except BRENNAN, who took no consideration case. Alan I. Horowitz, Washington, D.C., petitioner. Michael Lee Hertzberg, New York City, respondents. Justice BLACKMUN 1 This case arises out efforts Criminal Investigation Division (IRS) investigate calendar years 1979 through 1983. We granted certiorari, 488 907, 257, 102 246 (1988), issues Courts Appeals. first whether, enforces summons, see 26 U.S.C. § 7604, condition disclosure summoned information.1 restrictions. affirm issue 2 second concerns testimonial and, more particularly, generally recognized specific question applicability established "independent evidence" (i.e., reference content themselves), or, alternatively, can resolved nspection material.2 reject approach hold under circumstances we explore below, behest conduct Because considered only evidence," vacate remand further proceedings.3 3 * course investigation, sought access 51 documents connection entitled California v. Armstrong, C420 153. Armstrong litigation involved, charge one former members, Gerald obtained unlawful means documentary relating activities, Some seal. 4 IRS, Special Agent Steven Petersell, October 24, 1984, pursuant 7603, documents.4 were those listed. App. 33-38. November agents permitted inspect copy some materials, 5 27, secured temporary restraining United States Central California. required file acquired 21 reproductions notes related thereto, disposition intervenors' motion preliminary injunction bar these Exh. Petition Enforce Summons. By dated December 10, returned reflecting their contents. See 30. 6 January 18, 1985, summons. addition 12 sealed refused response Hubbard Respondents claimed faith, objected grounds lack relevance privilege. 7 asserted however, declarations Petersell. first, Petersell stated believing investigation. Declaration CV 85-0440-HLH, ¶ (March 8, 1985). second, offered description contents, based information received during several interviews. Appended declaration—over objection—were confidential source. 15, (filed seal).5 subsequent briefing, reiterated ruling. 8 After oral argument hearing, bad faith. Pet. Cert. 27a. id., 28a, specified: "The hereunder shall government agency unless criminal prosecution Order obtained." Id., 29a. 9 Turning demonstrated contain communications, waived, "[t]he 'fraud-crime' tend show admit past there clear indication being planned." 28a. basis, held "need summons." denied reconsideration, rejecting renewed toto. "While time discussed counsel, thereafter Mr. Petersell's submitted, suggested inadequate question." 25a-26a. 10 appealed Ninth Circuit, cross-appealed grounds. First, abused conditions subpoenaed information. disagreed, holding: "A may, appropriate, agreeing abide restrictions." 1411, 1417 (1987). 11 Second, contended erred application particular, argued incorrectly listened ruling inapplicable. Answering Brief Appellee 85-6065, Opening Cross-Appellant 85-6105 (CA9), pp. 48-49 seal). contended, contrast, opposite direction: error rely transcripts, "[i]n cannot themselves—whether listening reviewing them—to bear burden invoke evidence. unambiguous holding Shewfelt, 455 836 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 406 944, 92 2042, 32 331 (1972)." (Emphasis added.) Cross-Appellees Reply Appellants p. 24 panel that, "the recorded tapes," F.2d, 1418, thereby implicitly review, it. then reviewed evidence." 1418-1419. That appears thus improper transcripts. 7. failed establish 1419. 13 full en banc perceived conflict between Shewfelt Friedman, 445 1076 sub nom. Jacobs States, 404 958, 326, 30 275 (1971). 832 127 Upon consideration, majority limited Circuit 35-3, determined intracircuit illusory; Friedman address independent-evidence rule. 1136, amended (1988). rehearing improvidently reinstated part. Ibid. II 14 evenly place 7604 subpoena-enforcement action. therefore insofar III 15 Questions arise adjudication federal rights are "governed principles common law interpreted courts light reason experience." Fed.Rule Evid. 501. law, oldest known law." Upjohn Co. 449 383, 389, 101 677, 682, 66 584 (1981). Although underlying rationale changed over time, J. Wigmore, 2290 (McNaughton rev. 1961),6 long viewed central concern "to encourage frank communication attorneys clients promote broader public interests observance administration justice." Upjohn, U.S., S.Ct., 682. purpose, course, requires free "make attorneys" wrongdoings, Fisher 425 391, 403, 96 1569, 1577, 48 39 (1976), client obtain aid persons having knowledge skilled practice," Hunt Blackburn, 128 464, 470, 125, 127, L.Ed. (1888). 16 costs. Cf. Trammel 40, 50, 100 906, 912, 63 186 (1980). "[S]ince effect withholding factfinder, applies where necessary achieve purpose." Fisher, 1577. necessarily protect confidences wrongdoers, protection—the centrality open attorney proper functioning our adversary system justice—"ceas[es] operate certain point, namely, desired advice refers prior wrongdoing, wrongdoing." 2298, 573 (emphasis original); Clark 289 1, 53 465, 469, 77 993 (1933). It purpose assure "seal secrecy," ibid., lawyer extend "made getting commission fraud" crime. O'Rourke Darbishire, [1920] A.C. 581, 604 (P.C.). 17 found waived inadvertently given Armstrong. (noting Hubbard's personal secretary, mistaken impression blank). These findings here. Thus, remaining obstacle successful assertion contention made fraud. 18 A variety questions raises parties complete agreement effort clarify matter, observe, decide quantum proof ultimately Clark, quoting O'Rourke; Stone & R. Liebman, Testimonial Privileges 1.65, 107 (1983).7 Rather, concerned here type make ultimate showing. Within general area inquiry, initial applies.8 permitted, needed undertake Finally, required, it: i.e., case, possessed purpose. 19 ever honor conclude express provision Rules bars unwise instances matter law.9 20 (1) At blush, provisions appear 104(a) provides: "Preliminary concerning qualification person witness, admissibility . privileges." 1101(c) rule stages actions, cases, proceedings." Taken together, might read summons-enforcement proceeding, ruling: do otherwise, view, due regard 22 Even scholars reading acknowledge leads absurd result. 23 "Because judge claims fact determinations, many exceptions will become 'dead letters,' facts give rise never proved. For example, enable anyone commit There virtually way proved, save compelling contents communication; done." C. Wright K. Graham, Practice Procedure: 5055, 276 (1977) (footnote omitted). find Draconian interpretation inconsistent Rule's plain language. provide terms "clai[m] privilege" consideration. critical respect, language markedly different comparable rule, presiding officer require division privilege." Cal.Evid.Code Ann. 915(a) (West Supp.1989) added).10 text identical 25 Nor sense us assume, throughout litigation, once nature established, treated presumptively p rposes until "defeated" "stripped away" planning (asserting "established entitlement privilege," "determined privileged," resolved). supporting acknowledged imposition strict progression cases. Tr. Oral Arg. 33-35. deemed while remains open. Indeed, concede "if proponent able sustain submitting court" 14-15 original), avert eyes (or close ears) concludes privileged, "then same opponent applies." 15. Were truly moment trial potentially draw precisely counterintuitive distinction wisely reject. adopt treat "privileged" purposes Rule, interpret categorically prohibiting relying results communications. 27 (2) 28 Having privileges. prohibition against opponents' policies 29 begin analysis recognizing merits legal terminating approved practice requiring seek avoid available inspection, Kerr Northern Colo., 426 394, 404-405, 2119, 2124-25, 725 well courts. See, e.g., re Antitrust Grand Jury, 805 155, 168 (CA6 1986); Vargas, 723 1461, 1467 (CA10 1983); Lawless, 709 485, 486, (CA7 Jury Witness, 695 359, 362 1982). dispute point: involved unable muster serve 14-15. destroy propriety turns better fostered permitting costs imposing absolute establishing intolerably high. 31 "No how confronts claiming exception, blatant abuses substantiated extrinsic particularly true situations alleged proposal context relationship apparent legitimate end." Note, Future Crime Tort Exception Communications Privileges, Harv.L.Rev. 730, 737 (1964). per se creates, feel, too great impediment process. D. Louisell Mueller, 213, 828-829 (1985); Weinstein M. Berger, Weinstein's 503(d)(1)[01], 503-71 view consistent current trends law. Compare National Conference Commissioners Uniform State Laws, Evidence, 26(2)(a) (1953 ed.) ("Such finds aside communication, introduced warrant finding service plan tort" added)), reprinted Bailey O. Trelles, Evidence: Legislative Histories Related Documents (1980), 502 (adopted 1974), 13A U.L.A. 256 (1986) (omitting explicit requirement). B turn asserting always permissible, appropriate. addressing question, attend detrimental effect, any, orderly justice made. 33 Our endorsement testing proponents' reservation. noted Reynolds, 345 73 528, 97 727 (1953), delicate military secrets, "examination alone, chambers" cases "jeopardize security meant protect." 533. Analogizing Fifth Amendment observed generally: "Too much judicial inquiry into force thing protect, abandonment control lead intolerable abuses." 532. 34 Reynolds compromise reached. Weisman, 111 260, 261-262 (CA2 1940). declined "go so far say automatically accepted case." 533 added). think result 35 blanket allowing tool suggests, policy protecting undue risk. about possible process implications routine proceedings. John Doe Corp., 675 482, 489-490 198 ); September 1978 640 49, 56-58 1980). ignore burdens places courts, evaluate large records adversarial guidance parties. 36 permit opponents groundless fishing expeditions, unwitting (and perhaps unwilling) agents. "when justified," 490, cases," Sealed Case, 219 U.S.App.D.C. 195, 217, 676 793, 815 (1982) (opinion Wright, J.). Government conceded (albeit reluctantly) solely beg[ged it]" so, "with suspect fraud." 26; 60. agree. 37 fashioning standard observation "in inspection smaller intrusion confidentiality than disclosure." Fried, Too High Price Truth: Attorney-Client Privilege Contemplated Crimes Frauds, 64 N.C.L.Rev. 443, 467 (1986). lesser trigger overcome set, words, stringent one. 38 following strikes correct balance. Before engaging factual adequate person," Caldwell 644 P.2d 26, (Colo.1982), applies. particular including, volume asked relative importance information, likelihood together defer additional unduly disrupt delay C 40 what kind Here, 41 answer instance, Neither nor transcripts,11 record 42 Assuming moment, fail excluding little doubt directly incompletely strong subject themselves. Permitting them substantially rapidly reliably 43 suggest serious countervailing allow material litigants elicit disaffected employees others 40-41. deterring aggressive pursuit third-party sufficiently exclusionary term.12 D 44 sum, rigid requirement comport "reason experience," 501, decline developing hold, yield met adjudicated privileged. 45 employed themselves proceedings opinion. apes review.13 event holds determine, 46 ordered. 47 BRENNAN Author Services, Inc., 804 1520, 1525-1526 1986), amended, 811 1264 (1987), Barrett, 837 1341 (CA5 1988) (en banc), pending, 87-1705. (1972), Berkley Co., 629 548 (CA8 now moot, died 1986, foreclosing him, civil audit terminated " 'closed case.' Opposition 8-10. disagrees, largely terminated, could affect liability estate. satisfied live controversy remains. Frank Zolin, named respondent participate briefing term "respondents" refer Church, active illicit declared that: prepared custody County, California, copies source another issuance 410153, proceeding." 85-0440-HLH (Tx) illegality, assume legally Hazard, An Historical Perspective Privilege, Calif.L.Rev. 1061 (1978); Developments Law—Privileged Communications, 98 1450, 1455-1458 (1985). note, 14, (1933), phrase "prima facie case" describe defeat caused confusion. Gardner, Fraud A.B.A.J. 708, 710-711 (1961); Brooklyn L.Rev. 913, 918-919 (1985) ("The prima commonly shift other. dispel altogether affording opportunity rebut showing" original)). Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated 1983, 731 1032, 1039 1984). aware scholarly role fact. n., n. then, remains, Maguire Epstein, Preliminary Fact Determining Admissibility 392, 400 (criticizing "have allowed led superficial, one-sided allowable controversy"), 414-424 (exploring alternative rules) (1927); 5052, 248 (suggesting, proving fact,that "[p]erhaps task, like riding bicycle, easier you doing"). narrow occasion visit questions. meeting burden. certiorari 7-8. relates discussion petition. 20-23. demonstrating fairly presented, 21.1(a). follow inexorably event. ambiguity squarely purposes, although fairest court's times advocate position, 19-21, 13; position accept premise precedent case—i.e., seeks demonstrate requests ensure 20-21. example provided While disputed matters briefed hearing ongoing D.C. transcript Regarding conversations reflect Hearing February 11, 153 (Super.Ct.Cal.), 52. supported noted, recordings best exactly going on." 53. stressed "you can't contents." 58; 68. look conversation itself [the crime-fraud] determination," 74, concluded applies, 75-76. ngs resist exploration third party. Law Privileged Harv.L.Rev., 1648, 1660-1661 (discussing inadvertent constitute waiver citing cases); Wigmore 2326. communications—like case—may distinguish uses: both exclusion underlie

Category: 0