under the work product protection for materials prepared in anticipation of litigation. The Committee sought an order from the U.S. District Court requiring Eastman to produce the documents.
One of the exceptions to the work product protection is known as the crime-fraud exception. The Committee argued that this exception applied to the 111 documents. The opinion describes what the Committee had to show in order for the exception to apply:
The Court held that the Committee had satisfied (1) but not (2). With respect to (1), the Court held:The crime-fraud exception applies when (1) a “client consults an attorney for advice that will serve [them] in the commission of a fraud or crime,” 197 and (2) the communications are “sufficiently related to” and were made “in furtherance of” the crime.198 It is irrelevant whether the attorney was aware of the illegal purpose199 or whether the scheme was ultimately successful.200 The exception extinguishes both the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine.201 The party seeking disclosure must prove the crime-fraud exception applies by a preponderance of the evidence,202 meaning “the relevant facts must be shown to be more
Based on the evidence, the Court finds it more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021.
You can read the opinion here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .260.0.pdfBased on the evidence, the Court finds that it is more likely than not that President Trump and Dr. Eastman dishonestly conspired to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021.
Keep in mind, these rulings are not likely to be binding on Trump because he is not a party. Also, the burden of proof applied by the Court is "more likely than not" and not the "beyond reasonable doubt" that would apply in any criminal case. And, this is a hearing on a motion and not based on evidence presented at a trial. Still, it's interesting to see a judge's ruling on the issue.