In In re Grand Jury Investigation, 810 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2016) (No. 15-50450), the Ninth Circuit held that a district court must conduct an in camera review of documents alleged to fall within the crime-fraud exception in order to determine which specific attorney-client communications were in furtherance of and sufficiently related to the “intended, or present, continuing illegality.”  In a grand jury investigation of a medical device manufacturer, the government subpoenaed lawyers who had sent letters to the FDA on behalf of the manufacturer and certain surgery centers.   The lawyers did not comply fully with the subpoenas and the government moved to compel based on the crime-fraud exception.  The government relied on independent, non-privileged evidence to establish reasonable cause that the attorneys had been enlisted to make false statements to the FDA.  Without reviewing any documents in camera, the district court broadly ordered the attorneys to produce everything identified in the subpoenas.  The appellate court vacated the order and remanded the matter.  In order to successfully assert the crime-fraud exception, a party must satisfy two steps.  First, a party must establish a prima facie case of crime-fraud, that is, reasonable cause to believe that that attorneys have been used to further an ongoing, continuing or future crime or fraud.  For this first step, the court may rely solely on non-privileged information.  The second step is to determine which of the otherwise privileged documents are sufficiently related to and in furtherance of the illegal conduct to fall within the exception.  As a matter of first impression in the Ninth Circuit, the appellate court held that the district court erred by not conducting an in camera review of the disputed documents to determine which specific documents fell within the exception.  The appellate court remanded the matter, directing the district court to review the withheld subpoenaed documents to determine the proper scope of the production order.