Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Peter SPITZAUER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-05-17
Citations: 691 F. App'x 343
Docket Number: No. 16-30095
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Peter SPITZAUER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before; McKEOWN, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 691
Pages: 343–343

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Peter SPITZAUER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-30095
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted May 12, 2017 Seattle, Washington
Filed May 17, 2017
James A. Goeke, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-United States Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Washington, Spokane, WA, Rudy J. Verschoor, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USSP — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Christopher Robert Black, Attorney, Teymur Askerov, Attorney, Law Office of Christopher Black, PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellant
Before; McKEOWN, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Pursuant to the motion of the United States, the district court permitted disclosure of pre-existing business records subpoenaed by the grand jury in criminal proceedings against Michael Spitzauer. We have jurisdiction over Spitzauer's appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Where (1) grand-jury proceedings have concluded and an indictment has issued; (2) the disclosure is sought for a legitimate purpose; and (3) the requested disclosure is for preexisting business , records generated for a purpose other than the grand jury investigation, the disclosure of the requested records does not compromise the integrity of the grand jury process and does not amount to a disclosure of matters occurring before the grand jury. See United States v. Dynavac, Inc., 6 F.3d 1407, 1411-12 (9th Cir. 1993). The facts of this case fall squarely within Dynavac's holding and do not present "a rare and unusual case," where learning which documents the grand jury subpoenaed would disclose information about its deliberative process. See id. at 1412 n.2.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.