Torf

United States v. Torf

Good Law
350 F.3d 1010
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 26, 2003Nos. 03-30102, 03-30104, 03-30105, 03-30106, 03-30107California3,085 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Thompson, J.

In May 2000, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) informed Ponderosa Paint Manufacturing, Inc. (“Ponderosa”) that it was under investigation for violating federal waste management laws. Ponde-rosa hired attorney John McCreedy to advise and defend it in anticipated civil and criminal litigation with the government. McCreedy, on behalf of Ponderosa, retained Mark Torf, an environmental consultant, to assist him in preparing a legal defense for Ponderosa and as an environmental consultant on Ponderosa’s cleanup efforts at the sites that aroused the EPA’s suspicions.

Seeking to avoid litigation, Ponderosa submitted numerous documents to the EPA pursuant to an Information Request from the EPA and an Administrative Consent Order (“Consent Order”) between Ponderosa and the EPA. Many of these documents were, prepared by Torf. The EPA was satisfied that Ponderosa complied with both the Information Request and the Consent Order.

On March 6, 2002, however, a grand jury investigating Ponderosa issued a subpoena to Torf for “any and all records relating in any way to any work” regarding “the disposal of waste material ... from Ponderosa Paint[.]” Torf produced some documents…

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.