In Re Grand Jury Subpoenas, 966 F.3d 991

A federal grand jury investigated an acquisition where the acquired company's officers/shareholders allegedly provided fraudulent valuation information, causing an overpayment by the acquirer.
The grand jury issued subpoenas to a third-party foreign entity (the Company) and to Pat Roe, a former officer of the acquired company and current partner at the Company. Roe agreed to produce; the Company moved to quash and refused to produce.
The district court denied the motion to quash, ordered compliance, and held the Company in contempt after it declined to produce; the Company appealed and appeals were consolidated; enforcement against Roe was stayed.
The Company argued the appellate court had jurisdiction under the Perlman doctrine (citing an ownership interest in the documents) and challenged in personam jurisdiction and service of process.
The Ninth Circuit held it lacked appellate jurisdiction over the enforcement order directed to Roe (no claim of privilege), but affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to quash, its finding of in personam jurisdiction over the foreign Company, the validity of service via an integrated U.S. representative, and the contempt citation against the Company.

Issue	Company’s Argument	Government’s Argument	Held
Appellate jurisdiction over enforcement order to Roe under Perlman	Perlman permits immediate appeal because Company has ownership interest in documents subpoenaed from Roe	Perlman is limited to orders seeking allegedly privileged materials or other legal protections against disclosure	No jurisdiction; Perlman inapplicable because no privilege claim; dismissal in part
In personam jurisdiction over foreign Company	No jurisdiction because Company is foreign and not properly subject to U.S. grand jury subpoenas	Reasonable-probability test satisfied by evidence of U.S. ties, shared personnel/offices, capitalization links, and alleged money laundering	Jurisdiction exists under reasonable-probability standard; affirmed
Validity of service of subpoena	Service was improper because papers were accepted by Firm’s General Counsel, not a Company officer; Firm and Company are distinct	Service is valid where a representative sufficiently integrated with the Company accepted process and the Company thereafter engaged counsel	Service valid; acceptance by integrated representative and subsequent counsel contact made service fair and effective
Contempt citation against the Company	Company should not be held in contempt for refusing to produce documents	Company refused to comply with a valid grand jury subpoena after denial of quash motion	Contempt citation affirmed

Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7 (establishing narrow interlocutory appeal exception for compelled disclosure of privileged materials)
United States v. Ryan, 402 U.S. 530 (pretrial discovery orders denying interlocutory appeal under final-judgment rule)
United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (broad grand jury investigatory scope; limited grounds to resist subpoenas)
Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (limits on collateral-order appeals for pretrial discovery orders)
Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U.S. 323 (Perlman/Cobbledick discussion of privileges and finality)
In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 875 F.3d 1179 (Ninth Circuit standard of review and related grand jury subpoena precedent)
In re Grand Jury Subpoena Issued to Bailin, 51 F.3d 203 (no appellate jurisdiction over denial of motion to quash until contempt where privilege not implicated)
In re Marc Rich & Co., A.G., 707 F.2d 663 (reasonable-probability test for in personam jurisdiction in grand jury context)
Direct Mail Specialists, Inc. v. Eclat Computerized Techs., Inc., 840 F.2d 685 (service on corporate representative sufficiently integrated with organization)
United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (discussing Perlman and privilege-related issues)