View non-flash version
Legal Beat The federal court of appeals is divided on this issue. The Third and Ninth Cir- cuits have held that former officers of a corporation have a Fifth Amendment Right to refuse to produce corporate documents in their possession after they terminate their employment. The feder- al court of appeals for the Eleventh Cir- cuit and District of Columbia district court has held that they do not. In the case of In Re Three Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum Dated January 29, 1999 v. Doe, 191 F.3d 173 (2nd Cir. 1999), federal prosecutors sought to enforce subpoenas for documents issued by a grand jury in the Southern District of New York in connection with a criminal investigation of a corporation and its employees. The government alleged that the targets of the investiga- tion falsified the corporation's books and records and misapplied funds in the corporation's custody. In connection with this investigation, in June, Septem- ber and October of 1996. the grand jury issued subpoenas to the corporation for records related to the investigation. The September subpoena was broad in scope and covered virtually all of the conduct ultimately investigated. The October subpoena supplemented the September subpoena and set forth two additional document requests. Two indi- viduals, Doe One and Doe Two were corporate officers when all three grand jury subpoenas were served on the cor- poration and during the time in which the corporation responded to the sub- poenas. In connection with the corpora- Complete Marine Refrigeration Systems Air Conditioning Compressor and Chiller Units Reefer Cargo Box Installation/Repair Whatever Your Application It Pays To Contact ADRICK MARINE CORPORATION CALL US To Put ADRICK'S INNOVATION To Work For You • Ships Air Conditioning Units • Walk-in coolers and freezers • Portable reefer storage units • Portable A/C dockside systems • Control room dehumidification systems • Self contained A/C uprights and compacts • Fan coil units • Fiber glass pai • Ship stores ref • Reefer cargo t • Door gaskets ADRICK MARINE CORPORATION 81 Mahan Street West Babylon, NY 11704 Call (800) 326-ADRICK (631) 491-9475 FAX: (631) 491-9478 nels with wire mesh Tigeration unit 30x doors AIR CONDITIONING REFRIGERATION ADRICK COOLING CORPORATION Circle 203 on Reader Service Card ESQ GET A GRIP!! MAPECO PRODUCTS Call For Details! A PILGRIM NUT® will provide the Interference Fit and Frictional Grip on your rudder stock as required for proper installation, as specified by Lloyds and other classification societies. 91 Willenbrock Road Unit B4 Oxford, CT 06478 Phone: (203) 267-5716 Fax: (203) 267-5712 Pilgrim Nut on Rudder Stock Pilgrim Nut locations on on the MA/ "Lopez" ^^ typical rudder assembly. tion's compliance with the subpoena, an attorney for the corporation met with Doe One and Doe Two separately and requested that they produce responsive documents. Both individuals produced some documents, but were alleged to have retained others. By July of 1997, both individuals had left the corpora- tion's employment. A third individual, Doe Three resigned from the company in mid-July 1996, after the June sub- poena was issued and served. The cor- poration's attorney attempted to contact Doe Three to inquire whether she had responsive documents, but was unable to do so. In January of 1999, the government discovered that a former company employee had in her possession incrim- inating corporate records that were responsive to the 1996 subpoena but were not produced by the corporation. The government then served a fourth grand jury subpoena on twelve former employees, including Doe One, Doe Two and Doe Three requesting that they produce documents relevant to the investigation. Nine of the twelve former employees produced documents responsive to the subpoena. Doe One, Doe Two and Doe Three refused to produce any docu- ments and asserted a Fifth Amendment privilege against requiring them to pro- duce the documents. The government argued that the documents requested were corporate documents and that the three individuals remained corporate custodians even though they had left the corporation. The government requested that the district court order these indi- viduals to produce the documents. The district court denied the government's motion and held that the act of produc- tion by an individual who is no longer employed by the corporation is self- incriminating and, thus, not permitted by the Constitution. The government appealed. The court of appeals affirmed the dis- trict court and applied the act of produc- Legal Beat is a monthly feature in Maritime Reporter & Engineering News authored by the top legal minds of Dyer, Ellis & Joseph and covering the pressing legal matters faced by the international maritime community. Circle 18 on Reader Service Card
