5th Cir.

A civil contempt order confining a recalcitrant witness that is issued in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1826(a) is entitled to expedited review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1657. An appellate court must resolve such an appeal not more than 30 days from the filing of the appeal. Id. § 1826(b). The 30 day provision is not considered jurisdictional, however, and the Fifth Circuit regularly extends the date for resolving the appeal as needed to allow the appeal to be handled in an efficient, expedited fashion. See, e.g., In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, 29 Media L. Rep. 2301, 2303 (5th Cir.

The Fifth Circuit has not decided the question of who qualifies as a journalist for purposes of asserting the privilege. See In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, 2001 WL 940433, at n.4, 29 Media L. Rep. 2301, 2303 n.4 (5th Cir. Aug. 17, 2001) (noting that the Fifth Circuit has not addressed this issue).

Overview

5th Cir.

See discussion of U.S. v. DeLos Santos, above.

Overview

5th Cir.

The First Amendment guarantees the press and public a right of access to criminal trials: to attend, listen and report. U.S. v. Edwards, 785 F.2d 1293, 1294 (5th Cir. 1997). The 5th Circuit has cited Press-Enterprise for the proposition that there is a presumption of openness for a criminal trial, but this can be overcome if there is an overriding interest based on court findings that closure is essential to preserve higher values, and so long as the closure order is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. U.S. v. Hitt, 473 F.3d 146, 154 (5th Cir. 2006).

Regardless of whether a party intends to file a motion to quash, it should notify the subpoenaing party within 14 days of receipt of the subpoena if it objects to producing the subpoenaed materials so as to shift to the other party the burden of seeking an order to compel. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(2)(B). Whether a party must file a notice of intent to quash before filing a motion to quash will be a matter of the local rules for the federal district court in which the motion to quash will be filed.

Overview

5th Cir.

Nothing found specific to the 5th Circuit.

Overview

5th Cir.

Nothing found specific to the 5th Circuit, but many of the holdings relating to criminal trials may be applicable.

In both Miller and Selcraig, the Fifth Circuit held that, when the privilege applies, a party must provide substantial evidence that the sought-after information is relevant to overcome the privilege. Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 628 F.2d 932, 932 (5th Cir. 1980); In re Selcraig, 705 F.2d 789, 792 (5th Cir. 1983). Regardless of whether the privilege exists in a particular case, however, the subpoenaing party always bears the burden of demonstrating that the material sought is relevant. United States v. Arditti, 955 F.2d 331, 345 (5th Cir. 1992).