# Ellis Campbell, Jr., District Director of Internal Revenue v. J. M. Eastland and Montez Eastland

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · July 23, 1962 · 307 F.2d 478

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9448802

## Case

- **Full name:** Ellis CAMPBELL, Jr., District Director of Internal Revenue, Appellant, v. J. M. EASTLAND and Montez Eastland, Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** July 23, 1962
- **Citations:** 307 F.2d 478; 6 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 641; 10 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5279; 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 4425
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Bell
- **Judges:** Brown, Wisdom, Bell
- **Cited by:** 258 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9448802

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that allowing civil discovery during a criminal investigation would create "an open invitation to [parties] under criminal investigation to subvert the civil rules into a device for obtaining pre-trial discovery against the ■ Government in criminal proceedings”
- stating that, when appropriate, “the trial judge should use [her] discretion to narrow the range of discovery” for civil proceedings in which a defendant is the subject of a criminal investigation
- stating that “[a]dministrative policy gives priority to the public interest in law enforcement” regarding the issue of “which case should be tried first”
- holding that liberal civil discovery procedures are not a “back door” to information otherwise beyond reach under the criminal discovery rules
- noting that “[w]hile the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have provided a well-stocked battery of discovery procedures, the rules governing criminal discovery are far more restrictive”

## Opinion text

BELL, Circuit Judge
(concurring specially).
I concur in the result only. My view is simply that the trial court abused its discretion under the facts in finding the necessary good cause for the production of the reports then in the criminal files of the United States attorney for use in the civil case. 4 Moore’s Federal Practice (2nd ed.), § 34.04.
The criminal aspect of the matter could not be ignored. The end result *493 was tantamount to allowing discovery under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in a criminal proceeding, somthing we are powerless, as was the trial court, to authorize. The motion of the government to stay pending disposition of the criminal case should have been granted, and of course, all proceedings thereafter were nugatory.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9448802. Public record. Not legal advice.