La excepción por delito o fraude al privilegio abogado-cliente: privilegios probatorios y la lucha contra la corrupción en Estados Unidos
Titulo:

La excepción por delito o fraude al privilegio abogado-cliente: privilegios probatorios y la lucha contra la corrupción en Estados Unidos
.

Sumario:

El artículo se centra en el estudio de la figura del crime fraud exception o “excepción por delito o fraude”, creada en los Estados Unidos, que tiene como fin ser una herramienta para combatir la corrupción, mediante la eliminación, en ciertos casos, de la reserva de la doctrina de producto del abogado o del propio privilegio abogado-cliente. En primer lugar, el artículo esboza los elementos sobre los que puede recaer la excepción, para luego determinar su naturaleza y alcance. Luego, determina sus aspectos procedimentales, en pro de su invocación y, finalmente, analiza su impacto previo y retos futuros en cuanto a su aplicación frente a la corrupción financiera y política. Concluye señalando que la excepción por delito o fraude es una herr... Ver más

Guardado en:

Derecho Penal y Criminología

0121-0483

2346-2108

Bartholomew, Christine P.

UNIVERSIDAD EXTERNADO DE COLOMBIA

10.18601/01210483.v44n117.06

44

2023-06-09

149

178

Colombia

privilegio abogado-cliente,

doctrina del producto del abogado,

reserva,

excepción por delito o fraude,

corrupción,

evidencia,

ética

Christine P. Bartholomew - 2023

Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0.

info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess

http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2

id metarevistapublica_uexternado_derechopenalycriminologia_16_article_8747
record_format ojs
spelling La excepción por delito o fraude al privilegio abogado-cliente: privilegios probatorios y la lucha contra la corrupción en Estados Unidos
The Crime Fraud Exception: Evidentiary Privileges in the Fight Against Corruption in the United States
El artículo se centra en el estudio de la figura del crime fraud exception o “excepción por delito o fraude”, creada en los Estados Unidos, que tiene como fin ser una herramienta para combatir la corrupción, mediante la eliminación, en ciertos casos, de la reserva de la doctrina de producto del abogado o del propio privilegio abogado-cliente. En primer lugar, el artículo esboza los elementos sobre los que puede recaer la excepción, para luego determinar su naturaleza y alcance. Luego, determina sus aspectos procedimentales, en pro de su invocación y, finalmente, analiza su impacto previo y retos futuros en cuanto a su aplicación frente a la corrupción financiera y política. Concluye señalando que la excepción por delito o fraude es una herramienta poderosa en la lucha contra la corrupción, siempre y cuando se facilite su activación por parte de los abogados.
The article focuses on the study of the “crime fraud exception” created in the United States, as a tool to combat corruption by eliminating, in certain cases, the reservation of the attorney product doctrine or the attorney-client privilege itself. First, the article outlines the elements on which the exception may fall and determines its nature and scope. Then, it explains its procedural aspects, in favor of its invocation and, finally, it analyzes its previous impact and future chal­lenges regarding its application in the face of financial and political corruption. It concludes by identifying that the crime or fraud exception is a powerful tool in the fight against corruption, as long as its activation by lawyers is facilitated.
Bartholomew, Christine P.
attorney-client privilege,
attorney product doctrine,
reservation,
crime or fraud exception,
corruption,
evidence,
ethics
privilegio abogado-cliente,
doctrina del producto del abogado,
reserva,
excepción por delito o fraude,
corrupción,
evidencia,
ética
44
117
Núm. 117 , Año 2023 : Julio-Diciembre
Artículo de revista
Journal article
2023-06-09T11:20:25Z
2023-06-09T11:20:25Z
2023-06-09
application/pdf
text/html
text/xml
Instituto de Ciencias Penales y Criminológicas
Derecho Penal y Criminología
0121-0483
2346-2108
https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derpen/article/view/8747
10.18601/01210483.v44n117.06
https://doi.org/10.18601/01210483.v44n117.06
spa
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0
Christine P. Bartholomew - 2023
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0.
149
178
Advisory Committee’s Notes to 1970 Amendment to Fed. R. Civ.
Auburn K. Daily y S. Britta Thornquist, Has the Exception Outgrown the Privi¬lege? Exploring the Application of the Crime-Fraud Exception to the Attorney- Client Privilege, 16 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 583, 585–86 (2003).
Christopher Paul Galanek, The Impact of the Zolin Decision on the Crime-Fraud Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege, 24 Ga. L. Rev. 1115, 1122 (1990).
Cyrus Mehri, Richard Condit, and Cleveland Lawrence iii, Why Giuliani and Trump Can’t Hide Behind Attorney-Client Privilege, Politico (Oct. 3, 2019).
Dan Mangan y Chris Eudaily, Trump’s Ex-Lawyer Michael Cohen Cooperating with New York Prosecutors in Probe of Whether Trump Organization Falsified Records, CNBC (Sep. 11, 2019).
David J. Fried, Too High A Price for Truth: The Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege for Contemplated Crimes and Frauds, 64 N.C. L. Rev. 443, 444 (1986).
Dennis J. Ventry, Jr., Stitches for Snitches: Lawyers As Whistleblowers, 50 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 1455, 1552 n. 15 and Appendix (2017).
Edward J. Imwinkelried, The Need to Amend Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b): The Threat to the Future of the Federal Rules of Evidence, 30 Vill. L. Rev. 1465, 1466 (1985).
Elaina Plott, Rudy Giuliani l ‘You should be happy for your country that I unco¬vered this’, The Atlantic (Sept. 26, 2019), available at: https://www.theatlantic. Com/politics/archive/2019/09/giuliani-ukraine-trump-biden/598879.
Geoffrey C. Hazard, An Historical Perspective on the Attorney-Client Privilege, 66 Cal. Rev. 1061, 1062 (1978).
H. Lowell Brown, The Crime-Fraud Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege in the Context of Corporate Counseling, 87 Ky. L.J. 1191, 1210 (1999).
Implementation of the Whistleblower Provisions of Section 21F of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; Release No. 34-64545, 7 C.F.R. §§ 240, 249 (2016).
Ladd, Privileges, 1965 law & soc. ord. 555, 577.
Roger C. Cramton et al., Legal and Ethical Duties of Lawyers after Sarbanes- Oxley, 49 Vill. L. Rev. 725, 784 (2004).
Tom McCarthy y Ben Jacobs, Michael Cohen, Trump’s Former Lawyer, Pleads Guilty in New York Court, The Guardian (Aug. 21, 2018).
Two Foreign-Born Men Who Helped Giuliani on Ukraine Arrested on Campaign- Finance Charges, The Wall Street Journal (Oct. 10, 2019).
Alexander v. U.S., 138 U.S. 353, 358, (1891).
Amusement Indus., Inc. v. Stern, 293 F.R.D. 420, 426 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).
Brennan Center for Justice v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 697 F.3d 184, 207 (2d Cir. 2012).
Case No. 18-MJ-3161 (SDNY April 27, 2018).
Clark v. U.S., 289 U.S. 1, 15 (1933).
Coleman v. Am. Broad. Cos., Inc., 106 F.R.D. 201, 208 (D.D.C. 1985).
Diamond v. Stratton, 95 F.R.D. 503, 505 (S.D.N.Y. 1982).
Drummond Co. v. Conrad & Scherer, llp, 885 F.3d 1324, 1337 (11th Cir. 2018).
Feld v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 991 F. Supp. 2d 242, 247 (D.D.C. 2013).
Granada Corp. v. Honorable First Court of Appeals, 844 S.W.2d 223, 227-28 (Tex. 1992).
Grossman v. Schwarz, 125 F.R.D. 376, 387 (S.D.N.Y. 1989).
Gutter v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours, 124 F. Supp. 2d 1291, 1300-01 (S.D. Fla. 2000).
Haigh v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 676 F. Supp. 1332, 1357 (E.D. Va. 1987).
Harris Mgmt., Inc. v. Coulombe, 151, A.3d 7, 18-19 (Me. 2016).
Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 510-11 (1947).
Howell’s State Trials 1139 (1743).
In re Bairnco Corp. Sec. Litig., 148 F.R.D. 91, 100 (S.D.N.Y. 1993).
In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Schafer, 66 P.3d 1036, 1044 (Wash. 2003).
In re General Motors Corp., 153 F.3d 714 (8th Cir. 1998).
In re Grand Jury Investigation (Schroeder), 842 F.2d 1223, 1227 (11th Cir. 1987).
In re Grand Jury Investigation, 445 F.3d 266, 269 (3d Cir. 2006)
In re Grand Jury Investigation, 810 F.3d 1110, 1114 (9th Cir. 2016).
In re Grand Jury Investigation, 918 F.2d 374, 379 (3d Cir. 1990).
In re Grand Jury Investigation, 974 F.2d 1068, 1073 (9th Cir. 1992).
In re Grand Jury Investigation, No. MC 17-2336 (bah), 2017 WL 4898143, at *1 (D.D.C. Oct. 2, 2017).
In re Grand Jury Investigation, No. MC 17-2336 (bah), 2017 WL 4898143, at *8 (D.D.C. Oct. 2, 2017).
In re Grand Jury Proceeding, 417 F.3d 18, 23 (1st Cir. 2005).
In re G rand Jury P roceedings #5 Empaneled January 28, 2004, 4 01 F.3d 247, 253(4th Cir. 2005).
In re Grand Jury Proceedings #5, 401 F.3d 247, 251 (4th Cir. 2005).
In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 33 F.3d at 348.
In re Grand Jury proceedings, 87 F.3d 377, 381 (9th Cir. 1996).
In re Grand Jury Proceedings, Thursday Special Grand Jury Sept. Term, 33 F.3d 342, 350 (4th Cir. 1994).
In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Sept. 15, 1983, 731 F.2d 1032, 1039 (2d Cir. 1984).
In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 112 F.3d 910, 915 (8th Cir. 1997).
In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 731 F.2d 1032, 1041 (2d Cir. 1984).
In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 144 F.3d 653, 660 (10th Cir. 1998).
In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 419 F.3d 329, 335 (5th Cir. 2005).
In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 974 F.2d 1068, 1073 (9th Cir. 1992).
In re Grand Subpoena, 745 F.3d 681, 687 (3d Cir. 2014).
In re Int’l Sys. & Controls Corp. Sec. Litig., 693 F.2d 1235, 1242 (5th Cir. 1982).
In re John Doe Corp., 675 F.2d 482, 491 (2d Cir. 1982).
In re John Doe, Inc., 13 F.3 633, 637 (2d Cir. 1994).
In re John Doe, 662 F.2d 1073, 1076 (4th Cir.1981).
In re Pub. Def. Serv., 831 A.2d at 902.
In re Sealed Case, 107 F.3d 46, 50 (D.C.Cir.1997).
In re Sealed Case, 754 F.2d 395, 399 (D.C. Cir. 1985).
Intervenor v. United States (In re Grand Jury Subpoenas), 144 F.3d 653, 660 (10th Cir. 1998).
Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 10 (1996).
MC Asset Recovery, LLC v. Castex Energy, Inc., No. 4:07-CV-076-Y, 2012 WL 12919303, at *2 (N.D. Tex. May 31, 2012).
Monon Corp. v. Stoughton Trailers, Inc., 169 F.R.D. 99, 104 (N.D. Ill. 1996).
Nat.-Immunogenics Corp. v. Newport Trial Grp., No. sacv1502034jvsjcgx, 2018 WL 6137597, at *3 (C.D. Cal. May 16, 2018) on reconsideration in part, No. sacv152034jvsjcgx, 2019 WL 3110021 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2019).
Nobelpharma Ab v. Implant Innovations, Inc., 930 F. Supp. 1241, 1261 (N.D. Ill. 1996), aff’d, 141 F.3d 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
North Carolina Electric Membership Corp. v. Carolina Power & Light Co., 110 F.R.D. 511, 517 (M.D.N.C. 1986).
Ott v. State, 222 S.W. 261, 263 (Tx. 1920).
Parrott v. Wilson, 707 F.2d 1262, 1271-72 (11th Cir. 1983).
People v. Radojcic, 998 N.E. 1212, 1220-21 (Ill. 2013).
Pfeifer v. State Farm Ins. Co., 1997 WL 276085, *3 (E.D. La. 1997).
San Francisco Residence Club, Inc. v. Baswell-Guthrie, 897 F. Supp. 2d 1122, 1215 (N.D. Ala. 2012).
Stirum v. Whalen, 811 F. Supp. 78, 82 (N.D.N.Y. 1993).
Sutton v. Stevens Painton Corp., 951 N.E.2d 91, 96 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011).
Towne Place Condo. Ass’n v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co., 284 F. Supp. 3d 889, 895 (N.D. Ill. 2018).
Tremmel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 53 (1980).
U.S. Postal Serv. V. Phelps Dodge Ref. Corp., 852 F. Supp. 156, 164 (E.D.N.Y. 1994).
U.S. v. Ackert, 169 F.3d 136, 139 (2d Cir. 1999).
U.S. v. Buitrago-Dugand, 712 F. Supp. 1045, 1048 (D.P.R. 1989).
U.S. v. Loften, 507 F. Supp. 108, 112 (S.D.N.Y. 1981).
United States v. Chen, 99 F.3d 1495, 1503-04 (9th Cir. 1996).
United States v. Doe, 429 F.3d 450, 454 (3d Cir.2005).
United States v. Gallego, No. 4:18-cr-01537, 2018 U.S. Dist. lexis 152055 ( D. Ariz. Sept. 6, 2018).
United States v. Moazzeni, 906 F. Supp. 2d 505, 517 (E.D. Va. 2012).
United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 237 (1975).
United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 556 (1989).
Upjohn Co. v. U.S., 449 U.S. 383, 390 (1981).
Reglas federales de Procedimiento Civil.
https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derpen/article/download/8747/15055
https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derpen/article/download/8747/15056
https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derpen/article/download/8747/15057
info:eu-repo/semantics/article
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
http://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/ARTREF
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
Text
Publication
institution UNIVERSIDAD EXTERNADO DE COLOMBIA
thumbnail https://nuevo.metarevistas.org/UNIVERSIDADEXTERNADODECOLOMBIA/logo.png
country_str Colombia
collection Derecho Penal y Criminología
title La excepción por delito o fraude al privilegio abogado-cliente: privilegios probatorios y la lucha contra la corrupción en Estados Unidos
spellingShingle La excepción por delito o fraude al privilegio abogado-cliente: privilegios probatorios y la lucha contra la corrupción en Estados Unidos
Bartholomew, Christine P.
attorney-client privilege,
attorney product doctrine,
reservation,
crime or fraud exception,
corruption,
evidence,
ethics
privilegio abogado-cliente,
doctrina del producto del abogado,
reserva,
excepción por delito o fraude,
corrupción,
evidencia,
ética
title_short La excepción por delito o fraude al privilegio abogado-cliente: privilegios probatorios y la lucha contra la corrupción en Estados Unidos
title_full La excepción por delito o fraude al privilegio abogado-cliente: privilegios probatorios y la lucha contra la corrupción en Estados Unidos
title_fullStr La excepción por delito o fraude al privilegio abogado-cliente: privilegios probatorios y la lucha contra la corrupción en Estados Unidos
title_full_unstemmed La excepción por delito o fraude al privilegio abogado-cliente: privilegios probatorios y la lucha contra la corrupción en Estados Unidos
title_sort la excepción por delito o fraude al privilegio abogado-cliente: privilegios probatorios y la lucha contra la corrupción en estados unidos
title_eng The Crime Fraud Exception: Evidentiary Privileges in the Fight Against Corruption in the United States
description El artículo se centra en el estudio de la figura del crime fraud exception o “excepción por delito o fraude”, creada en los Estados Unidos, que tiene como fin ser una herramienta para combatir la corrupción, mediante la eliminación, en ciertos casos, de la reserva de la doctrina de producto del abogado o del propio privilegio abogado-cliente. En primer lugar, el artículo esboza los elementos sobre los que puede recaer la excepción, para luego determinar su naturaleza y alcance. Luego, determina sus aspectos procedimentales, en pro de su invocación y, finalmente, analiza su impacto previo y retos futuros en cuanto a su aplicación frente a la corrupción financiera y política. Concluye señalando que la excepción por delito o fraude es una herramienta poderosa en la lucha contra la corrupción, siempre y cuando se facilite su activación por parte de los abogados.
description_eng The article focuses on the study of the “crime fraud exception” created in the United States, as a tool to combat corruption by eliminating, in certain cases, the reservation of the attorney product doctrine or the attorney-client privilege itself. First, the article outlines the elements on which the exception may fall and determines its nature and scope. Then, it explains its procedural aspects, in favor of its invocation and, finally, it analyzes its previous impact and future chal­lenges regarding its application in the face of financial and political corruption. It concludes by identifying that the crime or fraud exception is a powerful tool in the fight against corruption, as long as its activation by lawyers is facilitated.
author Bartholomew, Christine P.
author_facet Bartholomew, Christine P.
topic attorney-client privilege,
attorney product doctrine,
reservation,
crime or fraud exception,
corruption,
evidence,
ethics
privilegio abogado-cliente,
doctrina del producto del abogado,
reserva,
excepción por delito o fraude,
corrupción,
evidencia,
ética
topic_facet attorney-client privilege,
attorney product doctrine,
reservation,
crime or fraud exception,
corruption,
evidence,
ethics
privilegio abogado-cliente,
doctrina del producto del abogado,
reserva,
excepción por delito o fraude,
corrupción,
evidencia,
ética
topicspa_str_mv privilegio abogado-cliente,
doctrina del producto del abogado,
reserva,
excepción por delito o fraude,
corrupción,
evidencia,
ética
citationvolume 44
citationissue 117
citationedition Núm. 117 , Año 2023 : Julio-Diciembre
publisher Instituto de Ciencias Penales y Criminológicas
ispartofjournal Derecho Penal y Criminología
source https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derpen/article/view/8747
language spa
format Article
rights http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0
Christine P. Bartholomew - 2023
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0.
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
references Advisory Committee’s Notes to 1970 Amendment to Fed. R. Civ.
Auburn K. Daily y S. Britta Thornquist, Has the Exception Outgrown the Privi¬lege? Exploring the Application of the Crime-Fraud Exception to the Attorney- Client Privilege, 16 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 583, 585–86 (2003).
Christopher Paul Galanek, The Impact of the Zolin Decision on the Crime-Fraud Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege, 24 Ga. L. Rev. 1115, 1122 (1990).
Cyrus Mehri, Richard Condit, and Cleveland Lawrence iii, Why Giuliani and Trump Can’t Hide Behind Attorney-Client Privilege, Politico (Oct. 3, 2019).
Dan Mangan y Chris Eudaily, Trump’s Ex-Lawyer Michael Cohen Cooperating with New York Prosecutors in Probe of Whether Trump Organization Falsified Records, CNBC (Sep. 11, 2019).
David J. Fried, Too High A Price for Truth: The Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege for Contemplated Crimes and Frauds, 64 N.C. L. Rev. 443, 444 (1986).
Dennis J. Ventry, Jr., Stitches for Snitches: Lawyers As Whistleblowers, 50 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 1455, 1552 n. 15 and Appendix (2017).
Edward J. Imwinkelried, The Need to Amend Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b): The Threat to the Future of the Federal Rules of Evidence, 30 Vill. L. Rev. 1465, 1466 (1985).
Elaina Plott, Rudy Giuliani l ‘You should be happy for your country that I unco¬vered this’, The Atlantic (Sept. 26, 2019), available at: https://www.theatlantic. Com/politics/archive/2019/09/giuliani-ukraine-trump-biden/598879.
Geoffrey C. Hazard, An Historical Perspective on the Attorney-Client Privilege, 66 Cal. Rev. 1061, 1062 (1978).
H. Lowell Brown, The Crime-Fraud Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege in the Context of Corporate Counseling, 87 Ky. L.J. 1191, 1210 (1999).
Implementation of the Whistleblower Provisions of Section 21F of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; Release No. 34-64545, 7 C.F.R. §§ 240, 249 (2016).
Ladd, Privileges, 1965 law & soc. ord. 555, 577.
Roger C. Cramton et al., Legal and Ethical Duties of Lawyers after Sarbanes- Oxley, 49 Vill. L. Rev. 725, 784 (2004).
Tom McCarthy y Ben Jacobs, Michael Cohen, Trump’s Former Lawyer, Pleads Guilty in New York Court, The Guardian (Aug. 21, 2018).
Two Foreign-Born Men Who Helped Giuliani on Ukraine Arrested on Campaign- Finance Charges, The Wall Street Journal (Oct. 10, 2019).
Alexander v. U.S., 138 U.S. 353, 358, (1891).
Amusement Indus., Inc. v. Stern, 293 F.R.D. 420, 426 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).
Brennan Center for Justice v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 697 F.3d 184, 207 (2d Cir. 2012).
Case No. 18-MJ-3161 (SDNY April 27, 2018).
Clark v. U.S., 289 U.S. 1, 15 (1933).
Coleman v. Am. Broad. Cos., Inc., 106 F.R.D. 201, 208 (D.D.C. 1985).
Diamond v. Stratton, 95 F.R.D. 503, 505 (S.D.N.Y. 1982).
Drummond Co. v. Conrad & Scherer, llp, 885 F.3d 1324, 1337 (11th Cir. 2018).
Feld v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 991 F. Supp. 2d 242, 247 (D.D.C. 2013).
Granada Corp. v. Honorable First Court of Appeals, 844 S.W.2d 223, 227-28 (Tex. 1992).
Grossman v. Schwarz, 125 F.R.D. 376, 387 (S.D.N.Y. 1989).
Gutter v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours, 124 F. Supp. 2d 1291, 1300-01 (S.D. Fla. 2000).
Haigh v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 676 F. Supp. 1332, 1357 (E.D. Va. 1987).
Harris Mgmt., Inc. v. Coulombe, 151, A.3d 7, 18-19 (Me. 2016).
Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 510-11 (1947).
Howell’s State Trials 1139 (1743).
In re Bairnco Corp. Sec. Litig., 148 F.R.D. 91, 100 (S.D.N.Y. 1993).
In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Schafer, 66 P.3d 1036, 1044 (Wash. 2003).
In re General Motors Corp., 153 F.3d 714 (8th Cir. 1998).
In re Grand Jury Investigation (Schroeder), 842 F.2d 1223, 1227 (11th Cir. 1987).
In re Grand Jury Investigation, 445 F.3d 266, 269 (3d Cir. 2006)
In re Grand Jury Investigation, 810 F.3d 1110, 1114 (9th Cir. 2016).
In re Grand Jury Investigation, 918 F.2d 374, 379 (3d Cir. 1990).
In re Grand Jury Investigation, 974 F.2d 1068, 1073 (9th Cir. 1992).
In re Grand Jury Investigation, No. MC 17-2336 (bah), 2017 WL 4898143, at *1 (D.D.C. Oct. 2, 2017).
In re Grand Jury Investigation, No. MC 17-2336 (bah), 2017 WL 4898143, at *8 (D.D.C. Oct. 2, 2017).
In re Grand Jury Proceeding, 417 F.3d 18, 23 (1st Cir. 2005).
In re G rand Jury P roceedings #5 Empaneled January 28, 2004, 4 01 F.3d 247, 253(4th Cir. 2005).
In re Grand Jury Proceedings #5, 401 F.3d 247, 251 (4th Cir. 2005).
In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 33 F.3d at 348.
In re Grand Jury proceedings, 87 F.3d 377, 381 (9th Cir. 1996).
In re Grand Jury Proceedings, Thursday Special Grand Jury Sept. Term, 33 F.3d 342, 350 (4th Cir. 1994).
In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Sept. 15, 1983, 731 F.2d 1032, 1039 (2d Cir. 1984).
In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 112 F.3d 910, 915 (8th Cir. 1997).
In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 731 F.2d 1032, 1041 (2d Cir. 1984).
In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 144 F.3d 653, 660 (10th Cir. 1998).
In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 419 F.3d 329, 335 (5th Cir. 2005).
In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 974 F.2d 1068, 1073 (9th Cir. 1992).
In re Grand Subpoena, 745 F.3d 681, 687 (3d Cir. 2014).
In re Int’l Sys. & Controls Corp. Sec. Litig., 693 F.2d 1235, 1242 (5th Cir. 1982).
In re John Doe Corp., 675 F.2d 482, 491 (2d Cir. 1982).
In re John Doe, Inc., 13 F.3 633, 637 (2d Cir. 1994).
In re John Doe, 662 F.2d 1073, 1076 (4th Cir.1981).
In re Pub. Def. Serv., 831 A.2d at 902.
In re Sealed Case, 107 F.3d 46, 50 (D.C.Cir.1997).
In re Sealed Case, 754 F.2d 395, 399 (D.C. Cir. 1985).
Intervenor v. United States (In re Grand Jury Subpoenas), 144 F.3d 653, 660 (10th Cir. 1998).
Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 10 (1996).
MC Asset Recovery, LLC v. Castex Energy, Inc., No. 4:07-CV-076-Y, 2012 WL 12919303, at *2 (N.D. Tex. May 31, 2012).
Monon Corp. v. Stoughton Trailers, Inc., 169 F.R.D. 99, 104 (N.D. Ill. 1996).
Nat.-Immunogenics Corp. v. Newport Trial Grp., No. sacv1502034jvsjcgx, 2018 WL 6137597, at *3 (C.D. Cal. May 16, 2018) on reconsideration in part, No. sacv152034jvsjcgx, 2019 WL 3110021 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2019).
Nobelpharma Ab v. Implant Innovations, Inc., 930 F. Supp. 1241, 1261 (N.D. Ill. 1996), aff’d, 141 F.3d 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
North Carolina Electric Membership Corp. v. Carolina Power & Light Co., 110 F.R.D. 511, 517 (M.D.N.C. 1986).
Ott v. State, 222 S.W. 261, 263 (Tx. 1920).
Parrott v. Wilson, 707 F.2d 1262, 1271-72 (11th Cir. 1983).
People v. Radojcic, 998 N.E. 1212, 1220-21 (Ill. 2013).
Pfeifer v. State Farm Ins. Co., 1997 WL 276085, *3 (E.D. La. 1997).
San Francisco Residence Club, Inc. v. Baswell-Guthrie, 897 F. Supp. 2d 1122, 1215 (N.D. Ala. 2012).
Stirum v. Whalen, 811 F. Supp. 78, 82 (N.D.N.Y. 1993).
Sutton v. Stevens Painton Corp., 951 N.E.2d 91, 96 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011).
Towne Place Condo. Ass’n v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co., 284 F. Supp. 3d 889, 895 (N.D. Ill. 2018).
Tremmel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 53 (1980).
U.S. Postal Serv. V. Phelps Dodge Ref. Corp., 852 F. Supp. 156, 164 (E.D.N.Y. 1994).
U.S. v. Ackert, 169 F.3d 136, 139 (2d Cir. 1999).
U.S. v. Buitrago-Dugand, 712 F. Supp. 1045, 1048 (D.P.R. 1989).
U.S. v. Loften, 507 F. Supp. 108, 112 (S.D.N.Y. 1981).
United States v. Chen, 99 F.3d 1495, 1503-04 (9th Cir. 1996).
United States v. Doe, 429 F.3d 450, 454 (3d Cir.2005).
United States v. Gallego, No. 4:18-cr-01537, 2018 U.S. Dist. lexis 152055 ( D. Ariz. Sept. 6, 2018).
United States v. Moazzeni, 906 F. Supp. 2d 505, 517 (E.D. Va. 2012).
United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 237 (1975).
United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 556 (1989).
Upjohn Co. v. U.S., 449 U.S. 383, 390 (1981).
Reglas federales de Procedimiento Civil.
type_driver info:eu-repo/semantics/article
type_coar http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
type_version info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
type_coarversion http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85
type_content Text
publishDate 2023-06-09
date_accessioned 2023-06-09T11:20:25Z
date_available 2023-06-09T11:20:25Z
url https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derpen/article/view/8747
url_doi https://doi.org/10.18601/01210483.v44n117.06
issn 0121-0483
eissn 2346-2108
doi 10.18601/01210483.v44n117.06
citationstartpage 149
citationendpage 178
url2_str_mv https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derpen/article/download/8747/15055
url3_str_mv https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derpen/article/download/8747/15056
url4_str_mv https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derpen/article/download/8747/15057
_version_ 1811199466194075648

Código QR

Estadísticas y Métricas Alternativas

Títulos similares