Filed: May 04, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Case: 14-12248 Date Filed: 05/04/2015 Page: 1 of 9 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 14-12248 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 1:08-cv-00945-TCB ROBBIE S. JOHNSON, individually, as Trustee of the Robbie S. Johnson Revocable Trust, a Florida Trust, and as Trustee of the Lorraine Wagman Revocable Trust, a Florida Trust, et. al., Plaintiffs - Appellees, versus MITCHELL ALAN GROSS, etc., et al., Defendants, JEROME J. FROELICH, Interested Par
Summary: Case: 14-12248 Date Filed: 05/04/2015 Page: 1 of 9 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 14-12248 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 1:08-cv-00945-TCB ROBBIE S. JOHNSON, individually, as Trustee of the Robbie S. Johnson Revocable Trust, a Florida Trust, and as Trustee of the Lorraine Wagman Revocable Trust, a Florida Trust, et. al., Plaintiffs - Appellees, versus MITCHELL ALAN GROSS, etc., et al., Defendants, JEROME J. FROELICH, Interested Part..
More
Case: 14-12248 Date Filed: 05/04/2015 Page: 1 of 9
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-12248
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:08-cv-00945-TCB
ROBBIE S. JOHNSON,
individually, as Trustee of the Robbie
S. Johnson Revocable Trust, a Florida Trust,
and as Trustee of the Lorraine Wagman
Revocable Trust, a Florida Trust, et. al.,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
versus
MITCHELL ALAN GROSS, etc., et al.,
Defendants,
JEROME J. FROELICH,
Interested Party - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(May 4, 2015)
Case: 14-12248 Date Filed: 05/04/2015 Page: 2 of 9
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JORDAN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jerome J. Froelich, Jr., an attorney proceeding pro se, appeals the district
court’s order of contempt after he refused to comply with a subpoena seeking the
production of any communications made between himself and certain third parties
during the representation of his client, Mitchell Gross, in a criminal case. After
reviewing the record and Mr. Froelich’s brief, we affirm.
I
On March 13, 2008, Robbie Johnson, on behalf of himself and others, filed a
civil suit against Mitchell Gross, 5th Ring Enterprises, and Debra Gross seeking
damages and injunctive relief. On June 13, 2008, the parties in that case settled
and agreed to the entry of a consent judgment, which awarded the plaintiffs
approximately $3.5 million. Prior to the settlement, Mr. Gross signed an
“Authorization for Law Firm Records Release and For Deposition/Interview”
which provided, in part, as follows:
This authorization permits Plaintiffs’ designees . . . to inspect the
original of all records of any nature in the possession, custody, or
control of [Mr. Gross’ lawyer or law firm], including but not limited
to correspondence . . . and to request and receive copies of records of
same concerning directly or indirectly any work done on behalf of
[Mr. Gross.]
2
Case: 14-12248 Date Filed: 05/04/2015 Page: 3 of 9
In the Release Mr. Gross waived all his privileges, including attorney-client and
work product, with the exception of his constitutional rights, to the extent that he
asserted those rights on matters unrelated to his “Undisclosed Assets.”
On August 24, 2011, a federal grand jury indicted Mr. Gross on several
counts of wire fraud and money laundering. Mr. Gross retained Mr. Froelich to
represent him. Several months later, Mr. Johnson served Mr. Froelich with a
subpoena, seeking the production of all communications from Mr. Froelich to
certain third parties during his representation of Mr. Gross. Mr. Froelich refused to
comply with the subpoena, claiming that the documents were immune from
disclosure under the work-product doctrine and that the subpoena was overly broad
and unreasonable. The district court overruled his objections and ordered Mr.
Froelich to comply.
After Mr. Froelich mounted several unsuccessful challenges to the order, the
district court held a telephone conference regarding his failure to comply with the
subpoena. Mr. Froelich reiterated his objections, which the district court again
overruled. Subsequently, the district court ordered Mr. Froelich to produce the
documents and, upon his refusal, held him in contempt. Mr. Froelich timely
appealed.
On appeal, Mr. Froelich argues that (1) the district court erred in enforcing
the subpoena because it sought the production of privileged documents; (2) the
3
Case: 14-12248 Date Filed: 05/04/2015 Page: 4 of 9
Release did not apply to the requested documents because it only waived Mr.
Gross’ work-product privilege with respect to matters unrelated to his criminal
case; (3) Mr. Froelich had the authority to independently assert the work-product
privilege to protect his own work; (4) disclosure of the documents would subvert
Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; and (5) the subpoena
infringed upon Mr. Gross’ Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.
II
“District courts are entitled to broad discretion in managing pretrial
discovery matters . . . , including when ruling on the applicability of the work-
product doctrine[.]” Republic of Ecuador v. Hinchee, 741 F.3d 1185, 1188 (11th
Cir. 2013) (citations omitted). “Nevertheless, ‘this discretion over discovery issues
is not wholly unfettered.’ We therefore review the district court’s [ruling] under
the abuse of discretion standard.” Perez v. Miami-Dade Cnty.,
297 F.3d 1255,
1263 (11th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). See also United States v. Roxworthy,
457 F.3d 590, 592 (6th Cir. 2006) (“We review a district court’s work product
privilege determination for abuse of discretion.”). The same abuse of discretion
standard applies to the district court’s civil contempt order. See In re Managed
Care,
756 F.3d 1222, 1232 (11th Cir. 2014).
We review de novo interpretations of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26
and 45. See Hinchee, 741 F.3d at 1188. We will affirm the ruling of the district
4
Case: 14-12248 Date Filed: 05/04/2015 Page: 5 of 9
court so long as its legal conclusions were correct and the record contains evidence
upon which the district court rationally could have based its decision. See Klay v.
All Defendants, 425 F.3d 977, 982 (11th Cir. 2005).
III
Ordinarily, under the work-product doctrine “a party may not discover
documents and tangible things that are prepared in anticipation of litigation or for
trial by or for another party or its representative[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A).
Such “work product” is reflected in “interviews, statements, memoranda,
correspondence, briefs, mental impressions, personal beliefs, and countless other
tangible and intangible ways[.]” Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 511 (1947).
The party invoking the work-product privilege bears the burden of establishing that
the privilege applies. See
Hinchee, 741 F.3d at 1189.
Rule 26(b)(5)(A) requires that the party seeking to “withhold[] information
otherwise discoverable by claiming that the information is . . . subject to protection
as trial-preparation material” must (1) “expressly make the claim,” and (2) describe
the nature of the items not produced or disclosed in a manner that will enable other
parties to assess the claim. See id. “Blanket assertions of privilege before a district
court are usually unacceptable . . . . Instead, [an attorney] must present himself
with his records for questioning, and as to . . . each record elect to raise or not to
5
Case: 14-12248 Date Filed: 05/04/2015 Page: 6 of 9
raise the defense.” In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 831 F.2d 225, 227 (11th Cir. 1987)
(emphasis in the original).
Mr. Froelich argues that the work-product doctrine protects the subpoenaed
communications, notwithstanding the waiver contained in the Release signed by
Mr. Gross. Mr. Froelich contends that, as an attorney, he possesses a privilege that
is separate and distinct from his client’s, and which he may raise to protect his own
work. See In re Green Grand Jury Proceedings, 492 F.3d 976, 980 (8th Cir. 2007)
(“An attorney’s independent assertion of his work product privilege . . . stands on a
very different footing because the attorney’s privilege is based on the attorney’s
interest in protecting his opinions and thought processes from disclosure.”). 1
Assuming without deciding that Mr. Froelich is correct on this point, his
argument nevertheless fails because he did not meet his burden of establishing that
the work-product doctrine applies to the subpoenaed documents. Contrary to Rule
26(b)(5)(A)’s requirements, Mr. Froelich did not describe the nature of the
undisclosed communications in a manner that allowed the plaintiffs and the distrct
court to evaluate his claimed privilege. Nor did he give a reason why the work-
product doctrine should apply to all of the communications. Instead, when
opposing counsel noted that Mr. Froelich had not provided a privilege log or
1
Mr. Froelich also asserts that the Release is inapplicable to the documents subpoenaed
by the plaintiffs because the Release only purports to waive Mr. Gross’ work-product privilege
as it relates to undisclosed assets. This argument, however, fails because we conclude that Mr.
Froelich did not sufficiently show that the privilege applies to the documents.
6
Case: 14-12248 Date Filed: 05/04/2015 Page: 7 of 9
attempted to parse out the communications that would be privileged, Mr. Froelich
replied, “I don’t parse it out. That’s not my job[.]” D.E. 184 at 7-8. See also D.E.
184 at 7 (Opposing Counsel: “I haven’t even received a privilege log saying that
these are all privileged[.]”) Mr. Froelich was incorrect on the law, and he failed to
show that the subpoenaed communications were privileged. See In re Grand Jury
Subpoena, 274 F.3d 563, 576 (1st Cir. 2001) (“A party that fails to submit a
privilege log is deemed to waive the underlying privilege claim.”).
Mr. Froelich also contends that, under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure, the subpoenaed documents were undiscoverable. Specifically,
he says that, under Rule 16(b)(2)(B), statements “made to the defendant or the
defendant’s attorney or agent by . . . a government or defense witness” are not
subject to discovery. He asserts that permitting civil litigants to access such
documents would subvert Rule 16, making otherwise undiscoverable materials
available to the public. Mr. Froelich, however, ignores the fact that he never
submitted a privilege log to the district court identifying the communications as
witness statements. Rule 26 sufficiently protects information of the type described
by Mr. Froelich. Indeed, “an attorney’s notes and memoranda of a witness’s oral
statements is considered to be opinion work product[,]” which “enjoys a nearly
absolute immunity and can be discovered only in very rare and extraordinary
circumstances.” Cox v. Adm’r U.S. Steel & Carnegie, 17 F.3d 1386, 1422 (11th
7
Case: 14-12248 Date Filed: 05/04/2015 Page: 8 of 9
Cir. 1994). Had Mr. Froelich sufficiently established that the work-product
doctrine protected certain (or all of the) documents, those documents would have
been immune from disclosure.
Mr. Froelich also argues that the subpoena was overly broad and
unreasonable because it did not contain any limitations on the time and subject
matter of the communications sought and only provided him with three business
days to comply. The record shows, however, that as a courtesy Mr. Johnson
provided Mr. Froelich with a copy of the subpoena several weeks before Mr.
Johnson officially served it. With respect to the subpoena’s scope, Mr. Froelich
had only acted as Mr. Gross’ attorney for approximately seven months at the time
he received the subpoena. Thus, the date range of the documents was necessarily
limited to a reasonable time. On this record, we cannot say that the district court
abused its discretion by enforcing the subpoena. 2
Lastly, Mr. Froelich makes passing references to the notion that the
documents are undiscoverable because their disclosure would infringe upon his
client’s “Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to due process, a fair trial, and
effective representation.” App. Br. at 17. He did not, however, adequately address
this argument in his brief. Thus, we deem the argument abandoned and will not
2
In addition, Mr. Froelich claims that the subpoena exceeded the 100-mile limitation
imposed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c). He did not, however, raise this claim in the
district court. Therefore, we need not consider it on appeal. See Starship Enter. of Atl., Inc. v.
Coweta Cnty., Ga., 708 F.3d 1243, 1254 (11th Cir. 2013).
8
Case: 14-12248 Date Filed: 05/04/2015 Page: 9 of 9
address it on appeal. See United States v. King, 751 F.3d 1268, 1277 (11th Cir.
2014) (“We have long held that an appellant abandons a claim when he either
makes only passing references to it or raises it in a perfunctory manner without
supporting arguments and authority.”) (citations omitted).
IV
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the district court did not abuse
its discretion in enforcing the subpoena or holding Mr. Froelich in contempt for
failing to comply with its order.
AFFIRMED.
9
