Opinion ID: 3047698
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: standard of review

Text: Several of our sister circuits review district court orders vitiating attorney-client privilege under the crime-fraud exception for abuse of discretion rather than de novo. See United States v. Laurins, 857 F.2d 529, 541 (9th Cir. 1988); 3086 IN RE: NAPSTER, INC. see also In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 87 F.3d 377, 380 (9th Cir. 1996). However, we have held that “rulings on the scope of the privilege,” including the crime-fraud exception, “involve mixed questions of law and fact and are reviewable de novo, unless the scope of the privilege is clear and the decision made by the district court is essentially factual; in that case only clear error justifies reversal.” Laurins, 857 F.2d at 541 (citing United States v. Zolin, 809 F.2d 1411, 1417 (9th Cir. 1987), vacated in part on other grounds, 842 F.2d 1135 (9th Cir. 1988)); see also In re Grand Jury Subpoena 92- 1(SJ), 31 F.3d 826, 829 (9th Cir. 1994) (stating that in the crime-fraud context “[w]e review de novo ‘whether an evidentiary showing is sufficient . . . .’ ”) (quoting In re Grand Jury Investigation, 974 F.2d 1068, 1071 (9th Cir. 1992)).