Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

attorneyinjunctionsearch and seizureseizureattorney-client privilege

plaintiffattorneyinjunctionmotionwillsearch and seizureseizureattorney-client privilege

Related Cases

Manno v. Christie, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2008 WL 4058016

Facts

Donald F. Manno, a solo legal practitioner in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, had his law office searched by the government under a warrant that authorized the seizure of documents related to 43 individuals as part of a criminal investigation. The search resulted in the seizure of numerous files and electronic devices, including hard drives containing information on all of Manno's clients over the past 15 years. Manno filed a complaint claiming that the search violated his attorney-client privilege and was overbroad, seeking an injunction against the government’s review of the seized materials.

Manno has been in private practice for over twenty-five years, and he had approximately 100 active and open files in his office during the time at issue here, most of which were related to criminal defense matters.

Issue

Did the search and seizure of Manno's law office violate the attorney-client privilege and the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches?

Manno contends that the search and seizure violated the attorney-client privilege he holds with his clients and represents an impermissible seizure of his protected attorney work product.

Rule

The court applied the standards for granting preliminary injunctive relief, which require a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, no greater harm to the nonmoving party, and public interest considerations.

Preliminary injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy that should only be granted if the party seeking the injunction can demonstrate: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) it will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is denied; (3) granting preliminary relief will not result in even greater harm to the nonmoving party; and (4) the public interest favors such relief.

Analysis

The court found that Manno did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on his claims that the search was overbroad. It noted that the warrant authorized the seizure of documents related to specific clients and that the government's procedure for reviewing the seized materials included safeguards to protect privileged information. The court concluded that the search was reasonable and that Manno's concerns about irreparable harm were speculative.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has not shown that it is likely that he will succeed on his claims that the search was overbroad. Rather, the Court concludes that the search was likely reasonable.

Conclusion

The court denied Manno's request for preliminary restraints, allowing the government to proceed with its review of the seized electronic materials while ensuring that procedures were in place to protect potentially privileged information.

The Court concludes that preliminary restraints are not warranted in this case, and Plaintiff's motion is denied.

Who won?

The government prevailed in this case as the court denied Manno's request for preliminary restraints, allowing the search and review of the seized materials to continue.

The government may proceed with its review of the electronic materials first for responsiveness and then for protection by an applicable privilege.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

In re Disciplinary Action Against Giese, 662 N.W.2d 250, 2003 ND 82

In re Teichner, 104 Ill.2d 150, 470 N.E.2d 972, 83 Ill.Dec. 552

Chrispens v. Coastal Refining & Marketing, Inc., 257 Kan. 745, 897 P.2d 104

Bell & Marra, pllc v. Sullivan, 300 Mont. 530, 6 P.3d 965, 2000 MT 206

Doe v. A Corp., 709 F.2d 1043