## Facts

- Following the 2020 presidential election, John C. Eastman worked with then-President Trump and others on legal and political strategies related to the election’s certification.
- The House Select Committee investigating the January 6 attack subpoenaed Chapman University for emails from Eastman’s university account covering November 3, 2020 to January 20, 2021.
- Eastman sued to block or limit compliance and asserted attorney-client privilege and work-product protection over certain emails.
- The court focused on a first tranche: 111 documents dated January 4–7, 2021, which Eastman claimed were privileged.
- The court conducted in camera review of the disputed documents and evaluated privilege, confidentiality, and the crime-fraud exception.
- The court considered evidence that Eastman and others had been told the plan for the Vice President to reject or delay electoral votes was unlawful and that Eastman acknowledged legal defects in the plan.

## Issues

1. Whether the disputed emails reflected confidential attorney-client communications for legal advice, as opposed to non-legal political or strategic discussions.
2. Whether use of a university email account, in light of employer computer-use policies, defeated confidentiality or effected waiver.
3. Whether the documents qualified as work product prepared in anticipation of litigation and, if so, whether protection was waived.
4. Whether the crime-fraud exception applied because certain communications were made in furtherance of potential federal crimes connected to the January 6 electoral count.
5. Whether any work-product protection was overcome by a sufficient showing of need.

## Decision

- The court partially granted and partially denied Eastman’s privilege claims as to the 111 documents.
- The court held some communications were protected by attorney-client privilege and/or the work-product doctrine and could be withheld.
- The court held other communications were not privileged because they were not legal advice, were not confidential, or otherwise failed the elements of the asserted protections.
- The court ordered production of a subset of documents otherwise within privilege because the crime-fraud exception applied.
- For purposes of the exception, the court found it more likely than not that Trump and Eastman engaged in conduct amounting to obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to defraud the United States, and that certain emails were in furtherance of that conduct.

## Legal Principles

- Attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications seeking or providing legal advice from a lawyer acting as a legal adviser; it does not protect purely political, strategic, or policy communications even if lawyers participate.
- Confidentiality for privilege purposes depends on whether the circumstances support a reasonable expectation of privacy; use of an employer email system is relevant and may defeat confidentiality depending on the employer’s policies and context.
- Work product protects materials prepared in anticipation of litigation by or for a party or its representative; materials tied to political advocacy or general strategy rather than litigation may fall outside the doctrine.
- The crime-fraud exception removes attorney-client and work-product protection where, by a preponderance of the evidence, (1) the client was engaged in or planning a crime or fraud when seeking legal advice, and (2) the communications were sufficiently related to and in furtherance of the illegality.
- When the crime-fraud exception applies, otherwise privileged communications must be produced.

## Conclusion

The court resolved privilege disputes over a subset of subpoenaed emails by distinguishing legal advice from political strategy, evaluating confidentiality under employer email policies, and ordering disclosure of certain communications under the crime-fraud exception where the court found they were more likely than not in furtherance of efforts to obstruct the congressional electoral count and to defraud the United States.


Eastman v. Thompson, 594 F. Supp. 3d 1156 (C.D. Cal. 2022)