In Re Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum (Ed Marger) (Dennis Merenbach). Robert Kent Lahodny, Movant-Appellant v. United States

The district court denied the motion of Robert Kent Lahodny, appellant, to quash grand jury subpoenas duces tecum served on two attorneys who formerly represented him. We affirm.

Ordinarily, appellate jurisdiction to review a denial of a motion to quash a grand jury subpoena does not lie until the person to whom the subpoena is directed has first resisted the order and has been found in contempt. United States v. Ryan, 402 U.S. 530 , 91 S.Ct. 1580 , 29 L.Ed.2d 85 (1970); Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U.S. 323 , 60 S.Ct. 540 , 84 L.Ed. 783 (1940). However, an immediate appeal is proper when the subpoena is directed to a third party, here the appellant’s attorney, because that party normally will not be expected to risk a contempt citation but will instead surrender the sought-after information, thereby precluding effective appellate review at a later stage. In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Fine), 641 F.2d 199 (5th Cir.1981); In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Katz), 623 F.2d 122 (2d Cir.1980). Cf. Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7 , 38 S.Ct. 417 , 62 L.Ed. 950 (1918) (immediate appeal is proper of a district court order compelling testimony that will injure a third party).

Lahodny…