Federal Privilege Rules Override State Accountant-Client Privilege in Subpoena Enforcement: Thompson v. General Nutrition

Federal Privilege Rules Override State Accountant-Client Privilege in Subpoena Enforcement: Thompson v. General Nutrition

Introduction

WM. T. THOMPSON CO. v. GENERAL NUTRITION CORP., INC. is a pivotal case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on February 8, 1982. The litigation centered around the enforcement of a subpoena for the production of documents from a third-party accounting firm, Touche Ross and Company. The primary legal contention involved the applicability of Pennsylvania's statutory accountant-client privilege in the context of a federal civil action that also encompassed state law claims. The parties involved included Wm. T. Thompson Co. (Thompson) as the appellee and General Nutrition Corporation along with General Nutrition Center, Inc. (General) as the appellants.

Summary of the Judgment

The Third Circuit Court affirmed the district court's decision to enforce a subpoena issued by Thompson compelling Touche Ross to produce specific documents. General Nutrition Corp. appealed the order, arguing that the subpoenaed materials were protected under Pennsylvania's statutory accountant-client privilege. The district court had dismissed this claim, allowing the deposition to proceed. On appeal, the Third Circuit held that federal law, specifically Federal Rules of Evidence 501, superseded the state statute in this context. Consequently, the appellate court denied General's appeal and upheld the enforcement of the subpoena.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively cited several landmark cases to support its reasoning. Notably:

  • PERLMAN v. UNITED STATES (1918): Established that employers could appeal enforcement orders of subpoenas based on property interests.
  • Ellis v. Interstate Commerce Commission (1915): Compared independent subpoena enforcement to separate equitable suits.
  • HARRIMAN v. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMmission (1908): Reinforced the finality and reviewability of agency subpoena orders.
  • Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson (1894): Further supported the finality of orders enforcing subpoenas.
  • Schmidt Sons (IN RE GRAND JURY): Highlighted the ability of intervenors with property interests to appeal enforcement orders.
  • COUCH v. UNITED STATES (1973): Determined the absence of a federal common law accountant-client privilege.
  • UNITED STATES v. NIXON (1974): Emphasized the disfavor of non-constitutionally based privileges in federal practice.

These precedents collectively underscored the principle that federal rules regarding privileges take precedence over state laws when federal and state claims are interwoven in litigation.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning hinged on the primacy of federal law in federal question cases. Under Federal Rules of Evidence (F.R.E.) 501, the privilege of a witness is governed by federal common law unless state law specifically dictates otherwise in cases where state law provides the rule of decision. Here, Thompson's federal antitrust claims intertwined with General's state law claims, which required a unified approach to privilege applicability.

The Third Circuit reasoned that applying Pennsylvania's accountant-client privilege would conflict with the federal rule favoring admissibility of evidence, especially given the established federal stance that no such privilege exists under common law, as per COUCH v. UNITED STATES. Additionally, the court emphasized the impracticality and unworkability of applying conflicting privilege rules in cases involving both federal and state claims.

Furthermore, the court addressed General's reliance on Pennsylvania statute Pa.Stat.Ann. tit. 63, § 9.11a, by interpreting it within the framework of federal procedural rules. It was determined that the Pennsylvania privilege could not override the federal policy against recognizing non-constitutional privileges in federal litigation.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for litigants in federal courts who seek to assert state-based privileges. It reinforces the supremacy of federal procedural rules over state laws in scenarios where federal and state claims coexist. Specifically, it limits the ability of parties to shield documents or testimony based on state statutes that are not recognized under federal common law privileges. This decision highlights the necessity for parties to be vigilant in understanding the interplay between state and federal laws in multi-jurisdictional litigation.

Additionally, the case sets a precedent for the treatment of third-party subpoenas in federal courts, clarifying that such enforcement mechanisms are governed independently of the main action and must adhere to federal standards. This ensures uniformity and predictability in the enforcement of subpoenas across different jurisdictions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Subpoena Duces Tecum

A legal order requiring a person or organization to produce documents or evidence in a legal proceeding. In this case, Thompson sought such a subpoena to obtain documents from Touche Ross.

Accountant-Client Privilege

A legal principle that protects the confidentiality of communications between a client and their accountant. Pennsylvania's statutory provision aimed to safeguard such communications from disclosure.

Fed.R.Ev. 501

Federal Rule of Evidence 501 determines the scope of witness privileges in federal court, which generally disfavors non-constitutional privileges and defers to federal common law unless state law dictates otherwise in specific circumstances.

Rule 45(d)

A provision under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that outlines the enforcement mechanisms for subpoenas issued for depositions, especially when directed to non-parties.

Conclusion

The Third Circuit's decision in WM. T. THOMPSON CO. v. GENERAL NUTRITION CORP., INC. underscores the dominance of federal procedural rules over state statutes in the context of federal litigation involving both federal and state claims. By affirming that Pennsylvania's statutory accountant-client privilege does not shield documents from a federal subpoena in such circumstances, the court reinforced the principle that federal rules will govern the admissibility of evidence to maintain consistency and integrity in federal courts. This case serves as a crucial reference for future litigants navigating the complexities of multi-jurisdictional privilege claims.

Case Details

Year: 1982
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Judge(s)

John Joseph Gibbons

Attorney(S)

Michael D. Fox, John P. Edgar (argued), Gary L. Goldberg, Vasilis C. Katsafanas, Berkman, Ruslander, Pohl, Lieber Engel, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellants, General Nutrition Corp. and General Nutrition Center, Inc. Les J. Weinstein (argued), Aaron M. Peck, Robert G. Badal, C. Steven McMurry, Scott P. Cooper, McKenna, Conner Cuneo, Los Angeles, Cal., Roger C. Wiegand, Reed, Smith, Shaw McClay, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellee Wm. T. Thompson Co.

Comments