FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAY 17 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-30095
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
2:13-cr-06071-SMJ-1
v.
MICHAEL PETER SPITZAUER, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Salvador Mendoza, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted May 12, 2017
Seattle, Washington
Before: McKEOWN, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Pursuant to the motion of the United States, the district court permitted
disclosure of pre-existing business records subpoenaed by the grand jury in
criminal proceedings against Michael Spitzauer. We have jurisdiction over
Spitzauer’s appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Where (1) grand jury proceedings have concluded and an indictment has
issued; (2) the disclosure is sought for a legitimate purpose; and (3) the requested
disclosure is for preexisting business records generated for a purpose other than the
grand jury investigation, the disclosure of the requested records does not
compromise the integrity of the grand jury process and does not amount to a
disclosure of matters occurring before the grand jury. See United States v.
Dynavac, Inc., 6 F.3d 1407, 1411–12 (9th Cir. 1993). The facts of this case fall
squarely within Dynavac’s holding and do not present “a rare and unusual case,”
where learning which documents the grand jury subpoenaed would disclose
information about its deliberative process. See id. at 1412 n.2.
AFFIRMED.
2