Source: http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/661/1145/298375/
Timestamp: 2013-05-19 07:44:42
Document Index: 278327378

Matched Legal Cases: ['art:\n4', '§ 1407', '§ 1826', '§ 1331', '§ 1331', '§ 2276']

661 F.2d 1145: In Re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation.appeal of John Conboy, Deponent :: US Court of Appeals Cases :: Justia
Justia > US Law > US Case Law > US Federal Case Law > US Courts of Appeals Cases > F.2d > Volume 661 > 661 F.2d 1145 - In Re Corrugated Container Antitrust ...	NEW - Receive Justia's FREE Daily Newsletters of Opinion Summaries for the US Supreme Court, all US Federal Appellate Courts & the 50 US State Supreme Courts and Weekly Practice Area Opinion Summaries Newsletters. Subscribe Now
661 F.2d 1145: In Re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation.appeal of John Conboy, Deponent
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. - 661 F.2d 1145
Argued Sept. 10, 1981.Decided Oct. 16, 1981
1 The parties do not dispute that the plaintiffs received copies of the transcripts of the Justice Department interview and the grand jury testimony. In this appeal, the parties do not state how these transcripts were made available to them. In In re Corrugated Container Litigation, Appeal of Charles J. Franey, 620 F.2d 1086 (5th Cir. 1980), involving an appeal from the same multi-district litigation by other witnesses for refusals to answer deposition questions regarding previous grand jury testimony, the transcript had been made available to the plaintiffs by court order, which was appealed. 620 F.2d at 1089 n.2. Here, Conboy does not challenge the provision of transcripts to plaintiffs and we express no opinion as to the propriety of that action
2 The balance of the deposition consisted of questions previously asked at the Department of Justice interview concerning Conboy's alleged involvement in price fixing activities during his tenure as Regional Marketing Coordinator for Weyerhaeuser's Central Region in Worthington, Ohio. The interrogation fell into the following pattern: a question was asked from the transcript; then it was rephrased to include the transcript answer (i. e., "(i)s it not the fact that...."); finally, Conboy would be asked if he had "so testified" in his interview statement. Examples of this three-question pattern are as follows:
3 Ohio's criminal antitrust statute states in pertinent part:
4 28 U.S.C. § 1407(b) provides, in pertinent part, that, in multi-district litigation, judges to whom pretrial proceedings are assigned "may exercise the powers of a district judge in any district for the purpose of conducting pretrial depositions ...." See In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation, Appeal of Phillip L. Fleischacker, 644 F.2d 70, 76 n.6 (3d Cir. 1980)
5 This interrogation concluded with the following:
6 28 U.S.C. § 1826(b) provides, in pertinent part, that "(a)ny appeal from an order of confinement under this section (recalcitrant witnesses) shall be disposed of as soon as practicable, but not later than thirty days from the filing of such appeal." Conboy's appeal was docketed with this Court on June 17, 1981. The parties completed their submission of briefs to this Court on July 10, 1981
7 A preliminary question is whether answers to the questions in issue might tend to reveal that the witness was engaged in criminal activity. In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation, Appeal of Charles J. Franey, 620 F.2d 1086, 1091 (5th Cir. 1980). Here, there is no serious dispute that Conboy's answers might tend to reveal that he was engaged in criminal activity
8 The Nixon Court stated:
9 The district court's order provided, in part, as follows:
10 The Miranti court stated:
11 In a letter after oral argument, plaintiffs' counsel stated:
12 Plaintiffs suggest that Ohio Rev.Code § 1331.13 would prevent a prosecution of Conboy. Ohio Rev.Code § 1331.13 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
13 The Kastigar Court stated:
14 This conclusion is buttressed by the government's policy of seeking specific grants of immunity with respect to each proceeding at which a witness testifies. See In re Folding Carton Antitrust Litigation, 465 F.Supp. 618, 626 (N.D.Ill.), rev'd on other grounds, 609 F.2d 867 (7th Cir. 1979). This policy was evidenced by the separate and distinct grants of immunity provided to Conboy for his initial interview testimony and then for his grand jury testimony
15 Other general considerations also mandate the conclusion that deposition testimony is independent evidence. A civil action is clearly a proceeding which is separate and distinct from a grand jury investigation or subsequent criminal trial. Because civil discovery constitutes an independent stage of litigation, testimony given in discovery would be deemed an independent source of evidence. Thus, for example, one who has freely given non-immunized grand jury testimony may nonetheless assert the Fifth Amendment privilege in subsequent proceedings. See, e. g., United States v. Cain, 544 F.2d 1113, 1115 (1st Cir. 1976) (Justice Clark, sitting by designation); United States v. Johnson, 488 F.2d 1206, 1208 (1st Cir. 1973) citing 8 Wigmore on Evidence § 2276, 470-72 (McNaughton rev. 1961; Supp.1972)
16 The Fleischacker Court's discussion of this issue is as follows:
17 As the district court stated in Folding Carton Litigation, 465 F.Supp. at 629, rev'd on other grounds, Brown, 609 F.2d 867:
18 The Housand court stated: