Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
No. 13-1957
In Re:
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
John A. Gibney, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:12-MS-00256-1)
Argued:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Appellants 1
granting
court
Compel
order
In
district
to
courts
Motion
district
and
order,
governments
the
Documents
its
the
challenge
concluded
that:
(1)
certain
lawyer
in
the
context
of
criminal
investigation.
We affirm the order of the district court only as to
the emails in question.
order.
I.
During the course of a grand jury investigation, the
government
issued
subpoena
duces
tecum
to
one
of
the
that
Appellant
and
government-employed
App. 35. 2
lawyer
such
emails
on
attorney-client
its
privilege
privilege.
log
See
as
id.
being
at
protected
30.
The
by
the
government
the
documents
withheld
are
privileged,
but
also
district
Appellant
explaining,
the
court
to
held
intervene,
evidence
hearing,
and
produced
permitted
granted
in
this
the
case
the
Motion,
does
not
investigations
to
protect
communications
between
App. 88.
court
reviews
district
courts
evidentiary
clear
novo.
error,
and
the
application
of
legal
principles
de
2012).
3
It
is
well-settled
that
confidential
conversations
F.3d
omitted).
501,
523
This
(4th
court
Cir.
has
2008)
held,
[t]he
quotation
burden
is
marks
on
the
existed,
but
also
that
the
law
emails.
or
legal
services
to
Appellants
with
respect
to
the
158
F.3d
1263,
(emphasis
in
1271
(D.C.
original).
Cir.
1998)
But
even
(citations
Lindsey
omitted)
recognizes,
consultation with one admitted to the bar but not in that other
persons
role
proponent
of
as
lawyer
the
is
not
privilege
to
protected
present
and
the
requires
underlying
the
facts
utterly
failed
to
present
any
specific
underlying
contains
between
lawyer
the
evidence
government
that
concerned
of
not
official
the
even
and
seeking
single
the
of
The
conversation
government-employed
legal
advice.
Thus,
Lindsey is unavailing.
B.
Having decided that Appellants failed to meet their
burden as to the two emails, we must now address whether we can
review
the
district
courts
broad
ruling
that
the
attorney-
it
at
We
conclude
that
this
juncture
would
the
issue
be
to
is
render
moot,
an
and
to
advisory
opinion.
Having
decided
that
the
two
emails
--
the
only
150, 161 (4th Cir. 2010); see also Reynolds v. Am. Natl Red
Cross, 701 F.3d 143, 156 (4th Cir. 2012).
In such a situation,
Norfolk S.
the
federal
courts
will
not
give
advisory
opinions.
have
this
proffered
authority,
only
7
and
conclusory
the
and
fact
that
hypothetical
assertions
to
support
their
claim
that
the
attorney-client
We
dispute
arises
as
to
particular
communications,
the
foregoing
reasons,
we
affirm
the
district
courts ruling that the two emails in question are not protected
by
the
courts
attorney-client
broad
ruling
privilege,
regarding
and
the
we
vacate
scope
of
as
the
moot
the
privilege