Carpenter v. Koskinen
16-1036-cv
| 2d Cir. | Jun 29, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Daniel Carpenter and Grist Mill Capital, LLC sought return and destruction of certain documents seized from 100 Grist Mill Road, Simsbury, CT, after the district court ordered return/destruction in a June 4, 2015 order.
- The Government (appealing as Commissioner Koskinen) moved to dismiss or for summary judgment; the district court denied that motion.
- The district court stayed its June 4 order by a February 5, 2016 order but left the order otherwise in place and signaled reconsideration pending this Circuit’s ruling in United States v. Ganias.
- Developments post-district-court: the Ganias panel decision relied on by the district court was later vacated by the en banc Second Circuit (United States v. Ganias, 824 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2016)); Carpenter was convicted in the related criminal case (United States v. Carpenter, 190 F. Supp. 3d 260 (D. Conn. 2016)) though not yet sentenced at the time of oral argument.
- At oral argument the parties narrowed disputes: plaintiffs do not oppose retention of documents relevant to the criminal case while they seek return of non‑relevant materials; the Government objects to returning materials relevant to the criminal proceedings and raised chain‑of‑custody concerns.
- The Second Circuit remanded to the district court for further proceedings in light of changed circumstances (Ganias en banc decision and developments in the criminal case) and retained jurisdiction for expedited review upon a party’s letter seeking review after the district court’s action on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether seized documents must be returned/destroyed under Rule 41(g) | Carpenter: district court properly ordered return/destruction of non‑criminal‑use documents | Gov: district court erred; Government may retain documents relevant to criminal prosecution | Remanded to district court to reconsider return/destruction given changed circumstances; stay remains in place pending further proceedings |
| Effect of Ganias on district court’s analysis | Carpenter relied on the original Ganias panel decision to support return | Gov urged reconsideration after en banc developments | Court remanded because Ganias panel decision was vacated by en banc court; district court should reassess under current law |
| Whether appellate jurisdiction allows immediate review of the order | Carpenter: enforcement of district order appropriate | Gov: jurisdictional questions are difficult and may bar immediate review | Court avoided resolving jurisdictional issues and remanded for district court to act first; panel retained jurisdiction for expedited restoration if requested |
| Coordination between civil Rule 41(g) relief and related criminal proceedings | Carpenter: seeks non‑criminal documents returned now; does not oppose retention of material relevant to criminal case while prosecution pending | Gov: objects to returning materials relevant to criminal case and raises chain‑of‑custody concerns | Court suggested district court consider coordinating civil and criminal cases before deciding; parties may negotiate chain‑of‑custody measures; remand for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ganias, 824 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2016) (en banc decision vacating prior panel precedent on retention of seized electronic files)
- United States v. Ganias, 755 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2014) (panel decision the district court initially relied upon)
- United States v. Carpenter, 190 F. Supp. 3d 260 (D. Conn. 2016) (criminal conviction proceedings related to the seized materials)
- United States v. Jacobson, 15 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 1994) (procedure for restoration of appellate jurisdiction following remand)