Featured Chrome Extensions:

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

defendantattorneysubpoenamotioncompliancecriminal procedureprivileged communicationattorney-client privilege
defendantattorneysubpoenatrialmotioncompliancecriminal procedureattorney-client privilege

Related Cases

H.B.A. Management, Inc. v. Estate of Schwartz By and Through Schwartz, 693 So.2d 541, 22 Fla. L. Weekly S236, 57 A.L.R.5th 855
View Case »
F.T.C. v. Assail, Inc., 410 F.3d 256, 74 USLW 3132, 2005-1 Trade Cases P 74,798
View Case »
Otis & Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 57 F.Supp. 680
View Case »
Smith v. City of New York, 133 A.D.2d 818, 520 N.Y.S.2d 195
View Case »
Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 130 S.Ct. 2549, 177 L.Ed.2d 130, 78 USLW 4555, 10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7396, 2010 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8838, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 437
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

United States v. Yielding, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2009 WL 10678588

Facts

Movants Jack Lassiter and Erin Cassinelli Couch represented Kelley Yielding in a federal investigation concerning her business, Advanced Neurophysiology, Inc. The investigation involved allegations of kickbacks and fraud related to payments made by the business. Following Kelley Yielding's death in 2006, defendant Geffrey Yielding served a subpoena requiring Lassiter to produce documents related to the representation of Kelley Yielding, which led to the current motion to quash the subpoena.

The government investigated Kelley Yielding, her husband defendant Geffrey Yielding, and a hospital employee Jody Wall concerning payments made by ANI to Wall allegedly in exchange for Wall ordering products that Kelley Yielding sold through ANI.

Issue

Whether the court should quash the subpoena issued to Jack Lassiter or limit its scope to exclude privileged information.

In their motion, movants ask the court to quash the subpoena or limit the scope of the subpoena to exclude disclosure of privileged information.

Rule

Under Rule 17(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a court may quash or modify a subpoena if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive, and the attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services.

Rule 17(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure permits a defendant to subpoena a witness to produce certain documents at trial. On motion, 'the court may quash or modify the subpoena if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive.'

Analysis

The court analyzed the applicability of the attorney-client privilege and the work-product privilege to the documents requested in the subpoena. It determined that the defendant, as the personal representative of Kelley Yielding's estate, could not waive the attorney-client privilege to obtain confidential communications between Kelley and her attorneys. The court also noted that the work-product privilege applies and protects the attorney's documents from disclosure.

The court finds that the attorney-client privilege and the work-product privilege apply and bar disclosure of privileged information.

Conclusion

The court granted the motion to quash the subpoena, limiting its application to the production of unprivileged information and protecting the privileged communications.

Accordingly, the motion to quash the subpoena [Doc. No. 45] is granted as set forth above.

Who won?

Movants Jack Lassiter and Erin Cassinelli Couch prevailed in the case as the court granted their motion to quash the subpoena, recognizing the importance of attorney-client and work-product privileges.

The court finds that an in camera review is not necessary at this time. The motion to limit application of the subpoena to production of unprivileged information is granted.

You must be