Doe

MEMORANDUM **

Appellants, John Doe, Richard Roe, Corporation A, and Corporation B appeal the district court’s Order compelling disclosure, pursuant to a grand jury subpoena, of various categories of communications between the appellants and Corporation A’s corporate counsel (the “Law Firm”). 1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . See In re Nat’l Mortgage Equity Corp. Mortgage Pool Certificates Litig., 857 F.2d 1238, 1240 (9th Cir.1988). We affirm in part, and reverse in part, the district court’s decision.

I. Richard Roe and Corporation B

We affirm the Order as it relates to Richard Roe and Corporation B because, both individually and jointly, they have submitted insufficient evidence to carry their burden of establishing an attorney-client relationship with the Law Firm. 2 See United States v. Gurtner, 474 F.2d 297, 298 (9th Cir.1973) (“The burden of establishing the existence of an attorney-client relationship rests on the claimant of the privilege who resists disclosure of shielded communication.”).

Neither Richard Roe (Corporation B’s formal beneficial owner) nor Corporation B had an express attorney-client relationship with the Law Firm. They contend, however,…