John C. Eastman v. Bennie G. Thompson, in His Official Capacity as Chairman of the United States House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, et al.

Petitioner appealed a decision of the District Court compelling Petitioner to disclose ten emails that the Court agreed were privileged. The District Court reasoned that although the emails at issue fell within the scope of the attorney-client or work product privileges, they were subject to the “crime-fraud” exception. That ruling created a stigma for both Petitioner and his client, the former President of the United States and current candidate for the presidency. Petitioner sought a stay from the District Court, which was denied. He also sought emergency relief from the Ninth Circuit, which was still pending at the time of the production deadline ordered by the District Court. At the deadline for production, Petitioner provided a link to the documents to congressional defendants but asked that they not view the documents until the Ninth Circuit ruled on Petitioner’s emergency application for a stay. Defendants ignored Petitioner’s request and distributed the emails to members of the committee. Then, in a public filing, defendants published the link to the confidential documents which were downloaded by several reporters following the case, thereby mooting Petitioner’s appeal. The Ninth Circuit subsequently denied Petitioner’s motion to vacate the judgment of the District Court. The question presented for review is whether vacatur is required where a case becomes moot solely by the action of defendants who had prevailed in the District Court and where Petitioner’s only actions were compliance with the court’s production order while his motion for emergency stay on appeal was pending?