Opinion ID: 170385
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Attorney-Client Privilege and Work-Product Doctrine Claims

Text: Ary soon learned he was under investigation and sought legal counsel. He hired Attorney Lee Thompson, who informed the United States Attorney and the Criminal Chief for the District of Kansas that he represented the defendant. Thompson instructed Ary to prepare notes and summaries of his involvement with the sale of artifacts at the Cosmosphere. Ary also collected items from his house belonging to the Cosmosphere, placed them in three boxes, and delivered them to Thompson. On December 18, 2003, a federal search warrant was executed at the defendant's residence in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The agents executing the warrant seized eleven boxes, some of which were labeled Artifacts. Several items in these boxes were Cosmosphere artifacts. Agents also seized two computers, a black plastic file box containing documents and other miscellaneous documents. Several days later, Ary's defense counsel, Thompson, turned over the three boxes Ary had previously delivered to him. Following the search of Ary's home, Thompson wrote to Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) Debra Barnett on December 22, 2003, and advised her that it appears as though the search resulted in the seizure of computers and other files containing what is clearly attorney client privileged communications and urged that immediate steps be taken to avoid purposeful intrusion by the government into the attorney-client relationship and communications. A second letter was sent on January 5, 2004, identifying files and other items counsel believed to be privileged. AUSA Barnett sent Thompson a letter dated January 28, 2004, in which she included a Compact Disc copy of the computers' files and informed Thompson that a taint team had determined several computer files were privileged. The letter assured Thompson the material will not be reviewed or examined by [Barnett] as part of this investigation. Further, AUSA Barnett informed Thompson that the taint team had been asked to review numerous files that were currently in FBI possession and would contact Thompson when the review was complete. On February 13, 2004, Thompson was informed that the review was complete and the government returned additional items it deemed privileged. Following this meeting, there were no further communications regarding privileged material and no additional items were returned to Ary. Over a year later, on May 25, 2005, Thompson went to the United States Attorney's office to review Rule 16 discovery materials. Fed.R.Crim.P. 16(a)(1)(E). One of the items provided for review was a container titled One black plastic box containing misc. documents. The contents of the box included tax returns, calendars and a number of individual file folders containing numerous summaries and analyses of items sold at auction and related information pertaining to Ary's status with the Cosmosphere. A second box, labeled Box 2, contained files categorized by the names of items sold at auction and was prepared by the government's investigative agents. Each file in the box contained copies of printed and handwritten notes that were also found in the black plastic box. Many of these documents were originally printed from the contents of the computers and indexed under headings such as Lee Thompson Information or Court Case. Defense counsel made a photocopy of these documents but did not immediately review them or inform the United States Attorney's Office that the contents of these boxes might contain privileged information. On July 15, 2005, the defendant moved to suppress any use of the documents in the two boxes. Ary claimed the files in the black plastic box were prepared in anticipation of litigation and were similar to the documents the government conceded were privileged and returned to Ary. Ary further complained these documents were found in the investigative files used by the government. The district court examined the documents in camera and determined the vast majority of these documents are records that would be viewed by third parties and thus not protected under attorney-client privilege. United States v. Ary, No. 05-10053-01, at 13, 2005 WL 2367541 (D.Kan. Sept. 27, 2005) (order denying motion to suppress). It determined, however, that the defendant's handwritten notations on the documents, as well as the way in which they were assembled, may raise the issue of work-product protection. Id. The district court nevertheless concluded that because counsel failed to raise the issue when he first reviewed the contents of the boxes at the Rule 16 discovery meeting he waived the protection. Id.