Opinion ID: 4538480
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Grand Jury and District Court Proceedings

Text: In April 2016, following Judge Cogan’s referral, a grand jury was impaneled in the Eastern District of New York (the “First Grand Jury”) to investigate Oberlander’s conduct with respect to the sealing orders. Two months later, in June 2016, the First Grand Jury issued the first of at least four subpoenas requesting documents from Oberlander relating to his communications with reporters. Oberlander refused to comply with the subpoena, and the First Grand Jury’s term expired on December 14, 2016. 6 Nevertheless, over four months later, the government, apparently unaware that the First Grand Jury had expired, served Oberlander with another grand jury subpoena (the “April 2017 Subpoena”) in connection with the same investigation. This subpoena, dated April 3, 2017, was directed to the custodian of records for Oberlander’s law firm and requested the same records as the first subpoena, as well as the custodian’s testimony. Neither Oberlander nor a different records custodian appeared to give testimony, and no records were produced. Meanwhile, on April 19, 2017, a new grand jury was impaneled (the “Second Grand Jury”) to investigate the same conduct: Oberlander’s mishandling of sealed documents and his violation of court-issued sealing orders. In August 2017, the government filed a motion to compel Oberlander to comply with the April 2017 Subpoena. The district court granted the motion a week later. After eight months and at least nine extensions of time, Oberlander filed a pro se motion to quash the subpoena on May 7, 2018. On June 6, 2018, the district court denied Oberlander’s motion to quash but directed the government to reissue the April 2017 Subpoena with minor amendments not relevant here. The court further ordered Oberlander to produce the documents demanded by the soon-to-be-reissued subpoena within a month 7 and warned that failure to comply would “result in sanctions, including the imposition of coercive fines or imprisonment pending compliance.” Gov’t App’x at 133. On June 12, 2018, in accordance with the district court’s direction, the Second Grand Jury issued a revised subpoena (the “June 2018 Subpoena”), which, like the prior two subpoenas, sought records of communications between Oberlander and eight news reporters “involving any matters about Felix Sater” and others occurring between January 11, 2011 and February 1, 2015. Gov’t App’x at 136. The June 2018 Subpoena also required the custodian of records to testify before the Second Grand Jury. On June 22, 2018, Oberlander filed a motion for reconsideration of his motion to quash the April 2017 Subpoena and to stay enforcement of the district court’s June 6 order, which the district court denied on June 27, 2018. 1 In so doing, the district court again warned Oberlander that his continued failure to produce responsive documents would result in coercive sanctions. 1Though Oberlander did not formally style this as a motion to quash the June 2018 Subpoena, that was its practical effect. The June 2018 Subpoena was substantively identical to the April 2017 Subpoena, and a decision to quash the April 2017 Subpoena would apply with equal force to the June 2018 Subpoena. Moreover, as the June 2018 Subpoena was then the operative subpoena in the investigation, Oberlander had no need to quash the old April 2017 Subpoena. 8 On July 3, 2018, one day before the production deadline set by the district court’s June 6 order, Oberlander produced responsive records for the period beginning on January 9, 2013 – the date on which Oberlander had incorporated his law practice – and continuing through the June 2018 Subpoena’s end date. Oberlander subsequently submitted to the district court additional records covering the period from the subpoena’s start date to January 8, 2013 – a period in which Oberlander operated his law firm as an unincorporated sole proprietorship. Relying on that fact, Oberlander, ostensibly moving to quash the June 2018 Subpoena, requested that the court review those records in camera to determine whether they constituted personal records protected by the Fifth Amendment’s “act of production” privilege – an argument that he had already raised, unsuccessfully, in his motion to quash the April 2017 Subpoena. Predictably, on September 25, 2018, the district court, treating Oberlander’s request as “an additional baseless motion for reconsideration,” determined that the records were not protected by the Fifth Amendment and ordered Oberlander to produce them “to the government” within six days. Gov’t App’x at 144, 146. Despite this order, Oberlander still had not produced the withheld documents by October 17, 2018 – the date on which the Second Grand Jury, which 9 issued the June 2018 Subpoena, expired. Five days later, without an impaneled grand jury, the government filed a motion to compel Oberlander to produce all withheld documents as required by the district court’s orders and the June 2018 Subpoena. On October 23, 2018, the district court ordered Oberlander to produce any remaining responsive documents by October 31, 2018 or be subject to civil contempt sanctions in the form of a $1,000 daily fine until he complied. After Oberlander claimed that he received late notice of that order, the district court issued yet another order, dated November 8, 2018, that temporarily stayed the October 23 order and directed Oberlander to produce the subpoenaed documents within seven days of receiving the court’s November 8 order, again with a $1,000 daily fine to follow for noncompliance thereafter. As before, the deadline imposed by the district court came and went without Oberlander producing any documents. 2 On November 16, 2018, Oberlander timely appealed from the district court’s November 8, 2018 order. Doc. No. 1. He also challenges the district court’s (i) June 6, 2018 order denying his motion to quash the April 2017 Subpoena; 2On November 29, 2018, a newly impaneled grand jury, which was still sitting as of February 19, 2019, issued a new subpoena to Oberlander. The new subpoena is identical in all material respects to the June 2018 Subpoena. Though the government moved to compel Oberlander to comply with this new subpoena, the district court has not yet ruled on that motion. 10 (ii) June 27, 2018 and September 25, 2018 orders denying his motions for reconsideration of his motion to quash; and (iii) October 23, 2018 order directing compliance with the June 2018 Subpoena on pain of coercive monetary sanctions. This Court granted Oberlander’s motion for a stay of monetary sanctions pending appeal. Doc. No. 34. II. Appellate Jurisdiction and Standard of Review We have jurisdiction over the district court’s November 8, 2018 final order imposing contempt sanctions, and the orders preceding it, under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See In re Air Crash at Belle Harbor, 490 F.3d 99, 104–05 (2d Cir. 2007); Anobile v. Pelligrino, 303 F.3d 107, 115 (2d Cir. 2002) (“Generally, . . . this Court interprets an appeal from a specific order disposing of the case as an appeal from the final judgment, which incorporates all previous interlocutory judgments in that case and permits their review on appeal.”). Insofar as Oberlander challenges our jurisdiction and that of the district court, we may consider those issues as well. See Kuhali v. Reno, 266 F.3d 93, 100 (2d Cir. 2001) (acknowledging that all Article III courts possess the “inherent jurisdiction . . . to determine their jurisdiction”). “The standard of review for determinations regarding subject-matter jurisdiction is clear error for factual findings, and de novo for the legal conclusion 11 as to whether subject[-]matter jurisdiction exists.” Cohen v. Postal Holdings, LLC, 873 F.3d 394, 398 (2d Cir. 2017) (quoting Lyndonville Sav. Bank & Tr. Co. v. Lussier, 211 F.3d 697, 701 (2d Cir. 2000)).