January 6 Committee​

Eastman-Chapman University Case

Major Issue:  Whether a law professor can block his former employer, a university, from responding to a House committee subpoena by producing the professor’s emails and other documents related to the 2020 election and January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Case Status: Complete.

Case Description: On January 18, 2022, the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol issued a subpoena to Chapman University requesting production of all documents and emails in its possession “attributable to Dr. John Eastman, that are related in any way to the 2020 election or the January 6, 2021 Joint Session of Congress” during the time period Nov. 3, 2020 to January 20, 2021.  On January 20, 2021, Dr. Eastman filed suit to invalidate the House committee subpoena and block any document production by Chapman University.

Procedural Posture:  The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division, where Chapman University is located.  California District Judge David O. Carter was assigned to the case.  On January 20, 2022, the same day the suit was filed, Judge Carter issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) and ordered expedited briefing.  On January 26, 2022, the district court lifted the TRO, denied the request for a preliminary injunction, and upheld the House subpoena.  The court also authorized Dr. Eastman to review the 19,000 documents that the university planned to produce and raise any privilege claims during the document production process.  Dr. Eastman reviewed documents and claimed privilege over some, and the House Select Committee objected.  After a March 8, 2022 hearing on the privilege claims, the District Court reviewed each of the 111 challenged documents.  On March 28, 2022, the District Court found 10 documents to be privileged and ordered disclosure of the remaining 101 documents to House Select Committee.  On June 7, 2022, the District Court ordered Dr. Eastman to disclose an additional 159 documents.

On Oct. 19, 2022, the Court ordered Dr. Eastman to disclose another 33 documents to the House Select Committee by Oct. 28, 2022, including 8 emails that the Court found were protected by privilege but had to be produced under the crime-fraud exception, because they were related to and may have furthered certain obstruction and conspiracy crimes. On Oct. 28, 2022, Dr. Eastman filed a motion with the Ninth Circuit to stay production of those 8 emails, but after he produced them to the House committee in compliance with the District Court order (because no stay was in place), on Nov. 7, 2022, at his request, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal as moot, but declined an Eastman request to vacate the District Court’s judgment. On Oct. 2, 2023, the Supreme Court denied an Eastman cert petition to review the Ninth Circuit decision.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division, where Chapman University is located.  Judge David O. Carter was assigned to Case No. 8:22-cv-00099-DOC-DFM.  On January 20, 2022, the same day the suit was filed, Judge Carter issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) and ordered expedited briefing.  On January 26, 2022, after receiving briefs from Dr. Eastman, Chapman University, and the House committee and holding oral argument, Judge Carter lifted the TRO, denied the request for a preliminary injunction, and upheld the House subpoena.  The court also issued an order allowing Dr. Eastman to review the 19,000 documents that Chapman University planned to produce and create a privilege log asserting any attorney-client or attorney work product privilege claims.

First, the parties disagreed over whether 111 documents sent or received by Dr. Eastman on his Chapman email account January 4-7, 2021 were privileged.  The parties submitted briefs on the issue and the court set a hearing for March 8, 2022.

On March 28, 2022, the District Court issued an order on some of the privilege claims.  The order examined whether privilege attached to each of the disputed documents, whether privilege was waived, and whether an exception applied.  The court found that privilege attached to 13 documents.  However, privilege was waived for two of those documents because they were made public by media disclosure and a court filing.  Additionally, the court found that one memo fell within the crime-fraud exception, as it likely furthered the crimes of obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to defraud the United States.  The court found the remaining 10 documents to be protected and ordered Dr. Eastman to disclose the other 101 documents.

On April 19, Dr. Eastman completed his privilege review of all requested documents.  After some negotiation between the parties, Dr. Eastman produced 933 documents and a consolidated privilege log identifying an additional 2,018 documents over which he claimed privilege.  The Select Committee withdrew objections to some of these documents and reserved the right to raise objections with respect to some others. 

The parties submitted briefs on the privilege assertions and the District Court ordered the disclosure of an additional set of documents on June 7, 2022.  While the Court found 440 of the requested documents to be protected by work product or attorney-client privileges, the Court ordered Dr. Eastman to disclose 159 documents to the House Select Committee by June 8, 2022. On Oct. 19, 2022, the Court ordered Dr. Eastman to disclose another 33 documents to the House Select Committee by Oct. 28, 2022, including 8 emails that the Court found were protected by privilege but had to be produced under the crime-fraud exception, because they were related to and may have furthered certain obstruction and conspiracy crimes. 

On Oct. 27, 2022, Dr. Eastman filed motions asking the court to reconsider its ruling and stay document production pending appeal. On Oct. 28, 2022, the District Court denied the Eastman motions.  Dr. Eastman filed a petition with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On Oct. 28, 2022, Professor John Eastman appealed an order by the District Court for the Central District of California to produce certain documents to the House committee and requested an immediate stay of document production pending his appeal. A Ninth Circuit three-judge panel, with Judges Fletcher, McKeown, and Wardlaw, was assigned to Case No. 22-56013.  On Oct. 30, 2022, Dr. Eastman filed a supplement to his petition, stating that he had produced the documents at issue to the House committee which ignored his request not to review them and requesting (instead of a stay) an order to return or destroy the documents. On Nov. 1, 2022, the House filed its opposition to the Eastman petition. Dr. Eastman subsequently moved to withdraw his appeal as moot and asked the Ninth Circuit panel to vacate the lower court’s opinion. On Nov. 7, 2022, the Ninth Circuit panel dismissed the appeal as moot and denied the motion to vacate the District Court opinion. On Nov. 17, 2022, Dr. Eastman moved for a rehearing en banc of the decision not to vacate the District Court opinion. On Jan. 30, 2023, the Ninth Circuit denied the Eastman petition for a rehearing.  Dr. Eastman filed an appeal with the Supreme Court.

On April 28, 2023, John Eastman filed a cert petition with the Supreme Court seeking to reverse a Ninth Circuit opinion which held that Dr. Eastman’s appeal was moot and declined to vacate the lower court’s rulings in the case. In particular, Dr. Eastman sought to vacate a district court order finding that certain emails should be disclosed to a congressional committee, because the emails were subject to the “crime-fraud” exception to the attorney-client and work-prodcut privileges and Dr. Eastman (together with former President Donald Trump) was “more likely than not” to have participated in certain obstruction and conspiracy crimes. Chapman University waived filing a response to the petition; the House of Representatives also did not file a response. On October 2, 2023, in a lengthy order addressing multiple matters, the Supreme Court denied the Eastman petition without comment, while noting that Justice Clarence Thomas had recused himself from the case.