United States v. Adam Brosius, 1:24-cr-20255

Patrick and Charles Boyd, owners of Safe Chain Solutions LLC, were indicted for allegedly running a fraudulent prescription drug diversion scheme involving over $90 million in diverted HIV medications from black-market suppliers.
The government obtained potentially privileged attorney-client communications during preexisting civil litigation between Gilead Sciences, Inc. and Safe Chain, utilizing a court-approved "Filter Team" protocol to screen these materials.
The prosecution sought a judicial finding that the crime-fraud exception applied, thereby allowing access to communications between Safe Chain and its law firm, Frier Levitt, during the alleged scheme.
The court performed an in-camera review of representative samples and additional materials to evaluate whether the communications furthered criminal activity or fraud.
The Prosecution Team had not directly reviewed the potentially privileged materials, relying on deposition testimony and the filter team’s summary for support instead.
The decision was made prior to any assertion by defendants of advice-of-counsel or good faith defenses, which could later affect the privilege determination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prima facie showing of fraud for crime-fraud exception	Indictment provides sufficient basis for prima facie showing	Indictment alone insufficient for prima facie case	Court agreed indictment meets the "low hurdle" of prima facie showing
Whether attorney-client assistance was in furtherance of fraud	Defendants used counsel to mask illegal activity (relied on depositions)	Consulted attorney in ordinary course, not to further fraud	No evidence communications furthered crime; privilege applies
Effect of timing and context of attorney communications	Contact with counsel following suspicious activity and complaints justifies access	Mere overlap in timing not enough; routine business sought legal advice	Timing alone does not justify crime-fraud exception
Impact of possible advice-of-counsel/good faith defenses	Not raised yet, but materials should be released if such defense raised	Not addressed at this juncture; privilege log pending	Motion denied without prejudice; could revisit if defenses raised

Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (attorney-client privilege encourages full and frank communications with counsel)
In re Grand Jury Investigation (Schroeder), 842 F.2d 1223 (2-part test for crime-fraud exception to privilege)
Drummond Co., Inc. v. Conrad & Scherer, LLP, 885 F.3d 1324 (attorney-client privilege attaches to confidential communications for legal advice)
United States v. Cleckler, [citation="265 F. App'x 850"] (crime-fraud exception may apply based on timing and knowledge of counsel)