Bloeser

Bloeser v. Durbin

Good Law
12 F. App'x 487
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 3, 2001No. 99-17609; D.C. No. CV-98-00170-WFNCalifornia1,090 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Carl Hugh Bloeser appeals the judgment of the district court granting the motion to dismiss filed by the United States, Dale Prescott Durbin, the United States Army and the Acting Secretary of the Army (collectively, the “defendants”), which the district court treated as a motion for summary judgment. The facts and prior proceedings are known to the parties; they are not recited herein, except as necessary.

I

Bloeser argues that the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants was in error, because the district court granted the motion before it afforded him adequate access to discovery. He argues that the district court denied him access to discovery when it failed to acknowledge that the Army’s off-base surveillance of him violated the Posse Comita-tus Act (“PCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1385 . 1 Bloeser argues that this alleged violation of the PCA entitled him to invoke the attorney-client privilege’s crime-fraud exception, and that the district court should have ordered the Army lawyer who invoked the privilege to answer his questions.

A party seeking to invoke the crime-fraud exception must establish “reasonable cause to believe that the attorney’s…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.