In re Grand Jury Subpoena Dated March 19, 2002, and August 2, 2002 (The Mercator Corporation)
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
318 F.3d 379 (2003)
- Written by Sara Adams, JD
Facts
The Department of Justice (DOJ) (plaintiff) began investigating the Mercator Corporation (Mercator) (defendant) for possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Mercator was represented by the law firm Akin Gump. The DOJ requested Swiss authorities to provide bank records for accounts belonging to certain foreign countries or officials who were believed to have accepted bribes from American corporations. The Swiss authorities did not satisfactorily comply with the request, so the grand jury subpoenaed Akin Gump and demanded it produce records for 30 accounts across four Swiss banks that were also covered in the request to Switzerland. Akin Gump claimed protection under the work-product doctrine and refused to produce the records. Akin Gump stated that it did possess a subset of documents created for a legal defense that were responsive to the subpoena but did not submit the documents or an explanation of the defense to the district court. The district court held that the work-product doctrine did not apply because the bank records were documents created by a third party, and the court compelled Akin Gump to produce them. Mercator, Mercator’s chairman, and Akin Gump appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Raggi, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
