PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4625
In Re:
UNDER SEAL
------------------------------
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
LAVABIT, LLC.; LADAR LEVISON,
Parties-in-Interest – Appellants.
-------------------------------
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION; AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION OF VIRGINIA; EMPEOPLED, LLC.; ELECTRONIC FRONTIER
FOUNDATION,
Amici Supporting Appellants.
No. 13-4626
PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4625
In Re:
UNDER SEAL
------------------------------
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
LAVABIT, LLC.; LADAR LEVISON,
Parties-in-Interest – Appellants.
-------------------------------
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION; AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION OF VIRGINIA; EMPEOPLED, LLC.; ELECTRONIC FRONTIER
FOUNDATION,
Amici Supporting Appellants.
No. 13-4626
PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4625
In Re:
UNDER SEAL
------------------------------
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
LAVABIT, LLC.; LADAR LEVISON,
Parties-in-Interest – Appellants.
-------------------------------
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION; AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION OF VIRGINIA; EMPEOPLED, LLC.; ELECTRONIC FRONTIER
FOUNDATION,
Amici Supporting Appellants.
No. 13-4626
AMERI CAN CI VI L LI BERTI ES UNI ON; AMERI CAN CI VI L LI BERTI ES UNI ON OF VI RGI NI A; EMPEOPLED, LLC. ; ELECTRONI C FRONTI ER FOUNDATI ON,
Ami ci Suppor t i ng Appel l ant s.
Appeal s f r om t he Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct Cour t f or t he East er n Di st r i ct of Vi r gi ni a, at Al exandr i a. Cl aude M. Hi l t on, Seni or Di st r i ct J udge. ( 1:13sw00522CMH1; 1:13dm00022CMH1)
Ar gued: J anuar y 28, 2014 Deci ded: Apr i l 16, 2014
Bef or e NI EMEYER, GREGORY, and AGEE, Ci r cui t J udges.
Af f i r med by publ i shed opi ni on. J udge Agee wr ot e t he opi ni on, i n whi ch J udge Ni emeyer and J udge Gr egor y j oi ned.
ARGUED: I an J ames Samuel , New Yor k, New Yor k, f or Appel l ant s. Andr ew Pet er son, OFFI CE OF THE UNI TED STATES ATTORNEY, Al exandr i a, Vi r gi ni a, f or Appel l ee. ON BRIEF: J esse R. Bi nnal l , BRONLEY & BI NNALL, PLLC, Fai r f ax, Vi r gi ni a; Mar ci a Hof mann, LAW OFFI CE OF MARCI A HOFMANN, San Fr anci sco, Cal i f or ni a; Davi d War r i ngt on, Laur i n Mi l l s, LECLAI RRYAN, Al exandr i a, Vi r gi ni a, f or Appel l ant s. Myt hi l i Raman, Act i ng Assi st ant At t or ney Gener al , Cr i mi nal Di vi si on, Nat han J udi sh, J osh Gol df oot , Benj ami n Fi t zpat r i ck, Br andon Van Gr ack, UNI TED STATES DEPARTMENT OF J USTI CE, Washi ngt on, D. C. ; Dana J . Boent e, Act i ng Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, Mi chael Ben Ar y, J ames L. Tr ump, OFFI CE OF THE UNI TED STATES ATTORNEY, Al exandr i a, Vi r gi ni a, f or Appel l ee. Al exander A. Abdo, Br i an M. Hauss, Cat her i ne Cr ump, Nat han F. Wessl er , Ben Wi zner , AMERI CAN CI VI L LI BERTI ES UNI ON FOUNDATI ON, New Yor k, New Yor k; Rebecca K. Gl enber g, AMERI CAN CI VI L LI BERTI ES UNI ON OF VI RGI NI A FOUNDATI ON, I NC. , Ri chmond, Vi r gi ni a, f or Ami ci Amer i can Ci vi l Li ber t i es Uni on and ACLU of Vi r gi ni a. Kur t Opsahl , J enni f er Lynch, Hanni Fakhour y, ELECTRONI C FRONTI ER Appeal: 13-4626 Doc: 65 Filed: 04/16/2014 Pg: 2 of 41 3
FOUNDATI ON, San Fr anci sco, Cal i f or ni a, f or Ami cus El ect r oni c Fr ont i er Foundat i on. Ri char d M. Mar t i nez, Mahesha P. Subbar aman, ROBI NS, KAPLAN, MI LLER & CI RESI , L. L. P. , Mi nneapol i s, Mi nnesot a, f or Ami cus Empeopl ed, LLC.
AGEE, Ci r cui t J udge: Lavabi t LLC i s a l i mi t ed l i abi l i t y company t hat pr ovi ded emai l ser vi ce. Ladar Levi son i s t he company s sol e and managi ng member . 1
I n 2013, t he Uni t ed St at es sought t o obt ai n cer t ai n i nf or mat i on about a t ar get 2 i n a cr i mi nal i nvest i gat i on. To f ur t her t hat goal , t he Gover nment obt ai ned cour t or der s under bot h t he Pen/ Tr ap St at ut e, 18 U. S. C. 3123- 27, and t he St or ed Communi cat i ons Act , 18 U. S. C. 2701- 12, r equi r i ng Lavabi t t o t ur n over par t i cul ar i nf or mat i on r el at ed t o t he t ar get . When Lavabi t and Levi son f ai l ed t o compl y wi t h t hose or der s, t he di st r i ct cour t hel d t hem i n cont empt and i mposed monet ar y sanct i ons. Lavabi t and Levi son now appeal t he sanct i ons. For t he r easons bel ow, we af f i r m t he j udgment of t he di st r i ct cour t .
1 The r ecor d does not r ef l ect t he st at e of Lavabi t s or gani zat i on or r egi st r at i on t o do busi ness. Nei t her does t he r ecor d cont ai n document s t hat ver i f y t he owner shi p of Lavabi t s member shi p i nt er est s or t he i dent i t y of i t s managi ng member . The par t i es and t he di st r i ct cour t assumed bel ow t hat Lavabi t and Levi son wer e [ o] ne and t he same. ( J . A. 115. ) As no par t y has i ndi cat ed ot her wi se, we wi l l al so assume t hat Levi son owns al l i nt er est s i n Lavabi t and i s f ul l y aut hor i zed t o act i n al l mat t er s on Lavabi t s behal f .
2 Because of t he nat ur e of t he under l yi ng cr i mi nal i nvest i gat i on, por t i ons of t he r ecor d, i ncl udi ng t he t ar get s i dent i t y, ar e seal ed. Appeal: 13-4626 Doc: 65 Filed: 04/16/2014 Pg: 4 of 41 5
I . A. Thi s case concer ns t he encr ypt i on pr ocesses t hat Lavabi t used whi l e pr ovi di ng i t s emai l ser vi ce. Encr ypt i on descr i bes t he pr ocess t hr ough whi ch r eadabl e dat a, of t en cal l ed pl ai nt ext , i s conver t ed i nt o ci pher t ext , an unr eadabl e j umbl e of l et t er s and number s. Decr ypt i on descr i bes t he r ever se pr ocess of changi ng ci pher t ext back i nt o pl ai nt ext . Bot h pr ocesses empl oy mat hemat i cal al gor i t hms i nvol vi ng keys, whi ch f aci l i t at e t he change of pl ai nt ext i nt o ci pher t ext and back agai n. Lavabi t empl oyed t wo st ages of encr ypt i on f or i t s pai d subscr i ber s: st or age encr ypt i on and t r anspor t encr ypt i on. St or age encr ypt i on pr ot ect s emai l s and ot her dat a t hat r est s on Lavabi t s ser ver s. Theor et i cal l y, no per son ot her t han t he emai l user coul d access t he dat a once i t was so encr ypt ed. By usi ng st or age encr ypt i on, Lavabi t hel d a uni que mar ket posi t i on i n t he emai l i ndust r y, as many pr ovi der s do not encr ypt st or ed dat a. Al t hough Lavabi t s use of st or age encr ypt i on was novel , t hi s case pr i mar i l y concer ns Lavabi t s second st age of encr ypt i on, t r anspor t encr ypt i on. Thi s mor e common f or m of encr ypt i on pr ot ect s dat a as i t moves i n t r ansi t bet ween t he cl i ent and t he ser ver , cr eat i ng a pr ot ect ed t r ansmi ssi on channel Appeal: 13-4626 Doc: 65 Filed: 04/16/2014 Pg: 5 of 41 6
f or i nt er net communi cat i ons. Tr anspor t encr ypt i on pr ot ect s not j ust emai l cont ent s, but al so user names, passwor ds, and ot her sensi t i ve i nf or mat i on as i t moves. Wi t hout t hi s t ype of encr ypt i on, i nt er net communi cat i ons move exposed en r out e t o t hei r dest i nat i on, al l owi ng out si der s t o l i st en i n. Tr anspor t encr ypt i on al so aut hent i cat es - - t hat i s, i t hel ps ensur e t hat emai l cl i ent s and ser ver s ar e who t hey say t hey ar e, whi ch i n t ur n pr event s unaut hor i zed par t i es f r om expl oi t i ng t he dat a channel . Li ke many onl i ne compani es, Lavabi t used an i ndust r y- st andar d pr ot ocol cal l ed SSL ( shor t f or Secur e Socket s Layer ) t o encr ypt and decr ypt i t s t r ansmi t t ed dat a. SSL r el i es on publ i c- key or asymmet r i c encr ypt i on, i n whi ch t wo separ at e but r el at ed keys ar e used t o encr ypt and decr ypt t he pr ot ect ed dat a. One key i s made publ i c, whi l e t he ot her r emai ns pr i vat e. I n Lavabi t s pr ocess, emai l user s woul d have access t o Lavabi t s publ i c keys, but Lavabi t woul d r et ai n i t s pr ot ect ed, pr i vat e keys. Thi s t echnol ogy r el i es on compl ex al gor i t hms, but t he basi c i dea i s aki n t o a sel f - l ocki ng padl ock: i f Al i ce want s t o send a secur ed box t o Bob, she can l ock t he box wi t h a padl ock ( t he publ i c key) and Bob wi l l open i t wi t h hi s own key ( t he Appeal: 13-4626 Doc: 65 Filed: 04/16/2014 Pg: 6 of 41 7
pr i vat e key) . Anyone can l ock t he padl ock, but onl y t he key- hol der can unl ock i t . 3
The secur i t y advant age t hat SSL of f er s di sappear s i f a t hi r d par t y comes t o possess t he pr i vat e key. For exampl e, a t hi r d par t y hol di ng a pr i vat e key coul d r ead t he encr ypt ed communi cat i ons t i ed t o t hat key as t hey wer e t r ansmi t t ed. I n some ci r cumst ances, a t hi r d par t y mi ght al so use t he key t o decr ypt past communi cat i ons ( al t hough some avai l abl e t echnol ogi es can t hwar t t hat abi l i t y) . And, wi t h t he pr i vat e key i n hand, t he t hi r d par t y coul d i mper sonat e t he ser ver and l aunch a man- i n- t he- mi ddl e at t ack. When a pr i vat e key becomes anyt hi ng l ess t han pr i vat e, mor e t han one user may be compr omi sed. Li ke some ot her emai l pr ovi der s, Lavabi t used a si ngl e set of SSL keys f or al l i t s var i ous subscr i ber s f or t echnol ogi cal and f i nanci al r easons. Lavabi t i n par t i cul ar empl oyed onl y f i ve key- pai r s, one f or each
3 Our descr i pt i on over si mpl i f i es a ver y compl i cat ed pr ocess t hat can var y dependi ng on what ci pher sui t es and pr ot ocol s ar e used. I n r eal i t y, a cl i ent and a ser ver engage i n an SSL handshake i nvol vi ng sever al di f f er ent communi cat i on st eps bet ween t he cl i ent and t he ser ver : i ni t i al hel l os, ser ver aut hent i cat i on usi ng an SSL cer t i f i cat e, pot ent i al cl i ent aut hent i cat i on, sendi ng ( by t he cl i ent ) and decr ypt i on ( by t he ser ver ) of a pr e- mast er secr et , gener at i on of a mast er secr et , gener at i on of sessi on keys, and f or mal compl et i on of t he handshake. Lat er communi cat i ons wi t hi n t he same sessi on t hen use t he gener at ed sessi on keys t o bot h encr ypt and decr ypt al l t he i nf or mat i on t r ansmi t t ed dur i ng t he sessi on. I t i s al so possi bl e t o conduct an abbr evi at ed handshake. Appeal: 13-4626 Doc: 65 Filed: 04/16/2014 Pg: 7 of 41 8
of t he mai l pr ot ocol s t hat i t suppor t ed. 4 As a r esul t , exposi ng one key- pai r coul d af f ect al l of Lavabi t s est i mat ed 400, 000- pl us emai l user s.
B. Wi t h t hi s t echni cal backgr ound i n mi nd, we t ur n t o t he case bef or e us.
1. On J une 28, 2013, t he Gover nment sought and obt ai ned an or der ( t he Pen/ Tr ap Or der ) f r om a magi st r at e j udge aut hor i zi ng t he pl acement of a pen r egi st er and t r ace- and- t r ap devi ce on Lavabi t s syst em. Thi s pen/ t r ap devi ce i s i nt ended t o al l ow t he Gover nment t o col l ect cer t ai n i nf or mat i on, on a r eal - t i me basi s, r el at ed t o t he speci f i c i nvest i gat or y t ar get s Lavabi t emai l account . 5 I n accor dance wi t h t he Pen/ Tr ap St at ut e, 18 U. S. C. 312127, t he Pen/ Tr ap Or der per mi t t ed t he Gover nment t o capt ur e al l non- cont ent di al i ng, r out i ng, addr essi ng, and
4 Emai l pr ot ocol s ar e t he t echni cal means by whi ch user s and ser ver s t r ansmi t messages over a net wor k. A gi ven user may choose t o use one of a var i et y of emai l pr ot ocol s, so Lavabi t was equi pped t o handl e t hat choi ce.
5 A pen r egi st er capt ur es out goi ng si gnal i ng and addr essi ng i nf or mat i on, whi l e a t r ap/ t r ace devi ce capt ur es t hat i nf or mat i on f or i ncomi ng messages. See 18 U. S. C. 3127( 3) , ( 4) . As t o emai l , t he same devi ce of t en per f or ms bot h f unct i ons and i s f r equent l y r ef er r ed t o as a pen/ t r ap devi ce. Appeal: 13-4626 Doc: 65 Filed: 04/16/2014 Pg: 8 of 41 9
si gnal i ng i nf or mat i on . . . sent f r om or sent t o t he t ar get s account . ( J . A. 10. ) I n ot her wor ds, t he Pen/ Tr ap Or der aut hor i zed t he Gover nment t o col l ect met adat a 6 r el at i ng t o t he t ar get s account , but di d not al l ow t he capt ur e of t he cont ent s of t he t ar get s emai l s. The Pen/ Tr ap Or der f ur t her r equi r ed Lavabi t t o f ur ni sh [ t o t he Gover nment ] . . . al l i nf or mat i on, f aci l i t i es, and t echni cal assi st ance necessar y t o accompl i sh t he i nst al l at i on and use of t he pen/ t r ap devi ce unobt r usi vel y and wi t h mi ni mumi nt er f er ence. ( J . A. 11. ) On t he same day t hat t he Pen/ Tr ap Or der i ssued, FBI agent s met wi t h Levi son, who i ndi cat ed t hat he di d not i nt end t o compl y wi t h t he or der . Levi son i nf or med t he agent s t hat he coul d not pr ovi de t he r equest ed i nf or mat i on because t he t ar get - user had enabl ed Lavabi t s encr ypt i on ser vi ces, pr esumabl y r ef er r i ng t o Lavabi t s st or age encr ypt i on. ( J . A. 7. ) But , at t he same t i me, Levi son l ed t he Gover nment t o bel i eve t hat he had t he t echni cal capabi l i t y t o decr ypt t he [ t ar get s] i nf or mat i on. ( J . A. 6. ) Never t hel ess, Levi son i nsi st ed t hat he woul d not exer ci se t hat
6 Met adat a, somet i mes cal l ed envel ope i nf or mat i on, descr i bes t he how, when, and wher e of t he message. Or i n S. Ker r , The Next Gener at i on Communi cat i ons Pr i vacy Act , 162 U. Pa. L. Rev. 373, 384 ( 2014) . I t i ncl udes I P addr esses, t o- f r om i nf or mat i on on emai l s, l ogi n t i mes, and l ocat i ons. I d. The Pen/ Tr ap Or der descr i bed what speci f i c met adat a t he Gover nment was aut hor i zed t o col l ect . Appeal: 13-4626 Doc: 65 Filed: 04/16/2014 Pg: 9 of 41 10
abi l i t y because Lavabi t di d not want t o def eat [ i t s] own syst em. ( J . A. 6. ) I n vi ew of Levi son s r esponse, t he Gover nment obt ai ned an addi t i onal or der t hat day compel l i ng Lavabi t t o compl y wi t h t he Pen/ Tr ap Or der . Thi s J une 28 Or der , agai n i ssued by a magi st r at e j udge, i nst r uct ed Lavabi t t o pr ovi de t he [ FBI ] wi t h unencr ypt ed dat a pur suant t o t he [ Pen/ Tr ap] Or der and r ei t er at ed t hat Lavabi t was t o pr ovi de any i nf or mat i on, f aci l i t i es, or t echni cal assi st ance . . . under t he cont r ol of Lavabi t . . . [ t hat was] needed t o pr ovi de t he FBI wi t h t he unencr ypt ed dat a. ( J . A. 9. ) Fur t her , t he J une 28 Or der put Lavabi t and Levi son on not i ce t hat any [ f ] ai l ur e t o compl y coul d r esul t i n any penal t y wi t hi n t he power of t he Cour t , i ncl udi ng t he possi bi l i t y of cr i mi nal cont empt of Cour t . ( J . A. 9. )
2. Over t he next el even days, t he Gover nment at t empt ed t o t al k wi t h Levi son about i mpl ement i ng t he Pen/ Tr ap Or der . Levi son, however , i gnor ed t he FBI s r epeat ed r equest s t o conf er and di d not gi ve t he Gover nment t he unencr ypt ed dat a t hat t he J une 28 Or der r equi r ed. As each day passed, t he Gover nment l ost f or ever t he abi l i t y t o col l ect t he t ar get - r el at ed dat a f or t hat day. Appeal: 13-4626 Doc: 65 Filed: 04/16/2014 Pg: 10 of 41 11
Because Lavabi t r ef used t o compl y wi t h t he pr i or or der s, t he Gover nment obt ai ned an or der t o show cause f r omt he di st r i ct cour t on J ul y 9. The show cause or der di r ect ed bot h Lavabi t and Levi son, i ndi vi dual l y, t o appear and show cause why Lavabi t LLC ha[ d] f ai l ed t o compl y wi t h t he or der s ent er ed J une 28, 2013[ ] i n t hi s mat t er and why [ t he] Cour t shoul d not hol d Mr . Levi son and Lavabi t LLC i n cont empt f or i t s di sobedi ence and r esi st [ a] nce t o t hese l awf ul or der s. ( J . A. 21. ) Ent r y of t he show cause or der spur r ed a conf er ence cal l bet ween Levi son, hi s counsel , and r epr esent at i ves f r om t he Gover nment on J ul y 10. Dur i ng t hat cal l , t he par t i es di scussed how t he Gover nment coul d i nst al l t he pen/ t r ap devi ce, what i nf or mat i on t he devi ce coul d capt ur e, and how t he Gover nment coul d vi ew and pr eser ve t hat i nf or mat i on. I n addi t i on, t he Gover nment asked whet her Levi son woul d pr ovi de t he keys necessar y t o decr ypt t he t ar get s encr ypt ed i nf or mat i on. Al t hough t he Gover nment agai n st r essed t hat i t was per mi t t ed t o col l ect onl y non- cont ent dat a, nei t her Levi son nor hi s counsel i ndi cat ed whet her Lavabi t woul d al l ow t he Gover nment t o i nst al l and use t he pen/ t r ap devi ce. 7
7 Levi son cont act ed t he Gover nment t he day af t er t he J ul y 10 cal l t o say t hat he woul d not appear at t he show cause hear i ng unl ess t he Gover nment r ei mbur sed hi s t r avel expenses. I n r esponse, t he Gover nment i ssued a gr and j ur y subpoena t o Levi son, whi ch per mi t t ed i t t o cover hi s expenses. That subpoena, whi ch was l at er wi t hdr awn, al so r equi r ed Levi son t o pr oduce Lavabi t s encr ypt i on keys. Appeal: 13-4626 Doc: 65 Filed: 04/16/2014 Pg: 11 of 41 12
On J ul y 13, 2013, f our days af t er t he show cause or der i ssued, Levi son cont act ed t he Gover nment wi t h hi s own pr oposal as t o how he woul d compl y wi t h t he cour t s or der s. I n par t i cul ar , Levi son suggest ed t hat Lavabi t woul d i t sel f col l ect t he Gover nment s r equest ed dat a: I now bel i eve i t woul d be possi bl e t o capt ur e t he r equi r ed dat a our sel ves and pr ovi de i t t o t he FBI . Speci f i cal l y t he i nf or mat i on we d col l ect i s t he l ogi n and subsequent l ogout dat e and t i me, t he I P addr ess used t o connect t o t he subj ect emai l account and [ sever al ] non- cont ent header s . . . f r om any f ut ur e emai l s sent or r ecei ved usi ng t he subj ect account . . . . Not e t hat addi t i onal header f i el ds coul d be capt ur ed i f pr ovi ded i n advance of my i mpl ement at i on ef f or t . ( J . A. 83. ) Levi son condi t i oned hi s pr oposal wi t h a r equi r ement t hat t he Gover nment pay hi m $2, 000 f or hi s ser vi ces. Mor e i mpor t ant l y, Levi son al so i nt ended t o pr ovi de t he dat a onl y at t he concl usi on of t he 60[ - ] day per i od r equi r ed by t he [ Pen/ Tr ap] Or der . . . [ or ] i nt er mi t t ent l y[ , ] . . . as [ hi s] schedul e al l ow[ ed] . ( J . A. 83. ) I f t he Gover nment want ed dai l y updat es, Levi son demanded an addi t i onal $1, 500. 8
The Gover nment r ej ect ed Levi son s pr oposal , expl ai ni ng t hat i t needed r eal - t i me t r ansmi ssi on of r esul t s. ( J . A. 83. ) Mor eover , t he Gover nment woul d have no means t o ver i f y t he
8 Al t hough t he Pen/ Tr ap Or der aut hor i zed compensat i on f or r easonabl e expenses t o Lavabi t ( J . A. 11) , nei t her Lavabi t nor Levi son ever r equest ed compensat i on f r om t he di st r i ct cour t . Levi son al so di d not at t empt t o show t he Gover nment t hat hi s pr oposed f ees wer e r equest s f or r easonabl e expenses t hat coul d be r ei mbur sed. Appeal: 13-4626 Doc: 65 Filed: 04/16/2014 Pg: 12 of 41 13
accur acy of t he i nf or mat i on t hat Lavabi t pr oposed t o pr ovi de - - a concer ni ng l i mi t gi ven Lavabi t s appar ent host i l i t y t owar d t he Gover nment . Levi son r esponded by i nsi st i ng t hat t he Pen/ Tr ap Or der di d not r equi r e r eal - t i me access, but di d not ot her wi se at t empt t o compl y wi t h t he Pen/ Tr ap Or der or t he J une 28 Or der .
3. On J ul y 16, 2013, t hr ee days af t er t he Gover nment r ecei ved Levi son s pr oposal and t he same day as t he show cause hear i ng, t he Gover nment obt ai ned a sei zur e war r ant f r om t he di st r i ct cour t under t he St or ed Communi cat i ons Act ( SCA) . See 18 U. S. C. 2701- 12. The sei zur e war r ant pr ovi ded t hat Lavabi t was t o t ur n over [ a] l l i nf or mat i on necessar y t o decr ypt communi cat i ons sent t o or f r om [ t he t ar get s] Lavabi t emai l account . . . , i ncl udi ng encr ypt i on keys and SSL keys. ( J . A. 27. ) I n addi t i on, t he war r ant cover ed [ a] l l i nf or mat i on necessar y t o decr ypt dat a st or ed i n or ot her wi se associ at ed wi t h [ t he t ar get s] Lavabi t account . ( J . A. 27. )
4. On J ul y 16, Levi son appear ed bef or e t he di st r i ct cour t pr o se, 9 on behal f of hi msel f and Lavabi t , f or t he show cause hear i ng. When asked whet her he pl anned t o compl y wi t h t he Pen/ Tr ap Or der , Levi son r esponded t hat he had al ways agr eed t o t he i nst al l at i on of t he pen r egi st er devi ce. ( J . A. 42. ) Nonet hel ess, Levi son obj ect ed t o t ur ni ng over hi s pr i vat e SSL encr ypt i on keys because t hat woul d compr omi se al l of t he secur e communi cat i ons i n and out of [ hi s] net wor k, i ncl udi ng [ hi s] own admi ni st r at i ve t r af f i c. ( J . A. 42. ) He al so mai nt ai ned t hat [ t ] her e was never an expl i ci t demand [ f r om t he Gover nment ] t hat [ he] t ur n over t he keys. ( J . A. 45. ) The di st r i ct cour t and t he par t i es i ni t i al l y di scussed whet her t he Pen/ Tr ap Or der r equi r ed Lavabi t t o pr oduce i t s encr ypt i on keys. The di st r i ct cour t obser ved t hat t he Pen/ Tr ap Or der s t echni cal assi st ance pr ovi si on may or may not encompass t he keys, but i t decl i ned t o r each t he i ssue dur i ng t he show cause hear i ng because [ he had] i ssued a sear ch war r ant f or t hat . ( J . A. 43. ) The Gover nment agr eed t hat i t had sought t he sei zur e war r ant t o avoi d l i t i gat i ng [ t he] i ssue of whet her t he Pen/ Tr ap Or der r eached t he encr ypt i on keys ( J . A. 43) , but
9 The r ecor d does not r ef l ect why Lavabi t and Levi son s pr i or counsel was no l onger r epr esent i ng t hem. Appeal: 13-4626 Doc: 65 Filed: 04/16/2014 Pg: 14 of 41 15
cont ended t hat t he Pen/ Tr ap Or der and t he J une 28 Or der r equi r ed t he encr ypt i on keys t o be pr oduced ( J . A. 45) . Af t er Levi son assur ed t he di st r i ct cour t t hat he woul d per mi t t he Gover nment t o i nst al l a pen/ t r ap devi ce on Lavabi t s syst em, t he di st r i ct cour t di d not i nqui r e f ur t her i nt o whet her Levi son woul d t ur n over hi s encr ypt i on keys. The di st r i ct cour t concl uded t hat i t need not yet r esol ve t he mat t er because Levi son had not been ser ved wi t h t he sei zur e war r ant and had not been cal l ed bef or e t he gr and j ur y ( as was ant i ci pat ed by t he t hen- out st andi ng gr and j ur y subpoena) . The di st r i ct cour t t hen schedul ed anot her hear i ng f or J ul y 26 t o conf i r m t hat Lavabi t had f ul l y compl i ed. Af t er t he show cause hear i ng, Lavabi t di d per mi t t he Gover nment t o i nst al l a pen/ t r ap devi ce. But , wi t hout t he encr ypt i on keys, much of t he i nf or mat i on t r ansmi t t ed t o and f r om Lavabi t s ser ver s r emai ned encr ypt ed, i ndeci pher abl e, and usel ess. The pen/ t r ap devi ce was t her ef or e unabl e t o i dent i f y what dat a wi t hi n t he encr ypt ed dat a st r eam was t ar get - r el at ed and pr oper l y col l ect abl e.
5. Shor t l y bef or e t he schedul ed hear i ng on compl i ance, Lavabi t and Levi son, now agai n r epr esent ed by counsel , moved t o quash t he sei zur e war r ant . I n r el evant par t , t hei r mot i on ar gued t hat Appeal: 13-4626 Doc: 65 Filed: 04/16/2014 Pg: 15 of 41 16
t he war r ant ( 1) amount ed t o an i mper mi ssi bl e gener al war r ant bar r ed by t he Four t h Amendment ; ( 2) sought i mmat er i al i nf or mat i on; and ( 3) i mposed an undue bur den on Lavabi t s busi ness. I n r esponse, t he Gover nment cont ended t hat t he war r ant mer el y r e- st at e[ d] and cl ar i f [ i ed] Lavabi t s obl i gat i ons under t he Pen- Tr ap Act t o pr ovi de t hat same i nf or mat i on. ( J . A. 86. ) The Gover nment not ed t hat f our di f f er ent l egal obl i gat i ons, i ncl udi ng t he Pen/ Tr ap Or der and t he J une 28 Or der , r equi r ed Lavabi t t o pr oduce t he encr ypt i on keys. Lavabi t s mot i on t o quash, however , di d not ment i on ei t her t he Pen/ Tr ap Or der or t he J une 28 Or der .
6. On August 1, over a mont h af t er t he Pen/ Tr ap Or der f i r st i ssued, t he di st r i ct cour t hel d i t s second hear i ng. 10 The cour t r emar ked t hat [ t ] he di f f i cul t y or t he ease i n obt ai ni ng t he i nf or mat i on [ di dn t ] have anyt hi ng t o do wi t h whet her or not t he gover nment s l awf ul l y ent i t l ed t o t hat i nf or mat i on. ( J . A. 108. ) For t hat r eason, t he di st r i ct cour t deni ed t he mot i on t o quash t he Gover nment s ver y nar r ow, speci f i c war r ant . ( J . A. 108. ) The cour t al so f ound i t r easonabl e t hat t he Gover nment
10 Not hi ng i n t he r ecor d i ndi cat es why t he hear i ng, or i gi nal l y set f or J ul y 26, 2013, was del ayed t o August 1. Appeal: 13-4626 Doc: 65 Filed: 04/16/2014 Pg: 16 of 41 17
woul d not col l ect al l user s dat a, even i f t he encr ypt i on keys woul d pr act i cal l y enabl e t he Gover nment t o access al l t hat dat a. The di st r i ct cour t t hen ent er ed an or der ( t he August 1 Or der ) di r ect i ng Lavabi t t o t ur n over i t s encr ypt i on keys. The or der f ur t her i nst r uct ed Lavabi t t o pr ovi de t he Gover nment any ot her i nf or mat i on, f aci l i t i es, and t echni cal assi st ance necessar y t o accompl i sh t he i nst al l at i on and use of t he pen/ t r ap devi ce as r equi r ed by t he J ul y 16, 2013 sei zur e war r ant and t he [ Pen/ Tr ap Or der ] . ( J . A. 11819. ) The August 1 Or der di r ect ed Lavabi t and Levi son t o t ur n over t he encr ypt i on keys by 5: 00 pm on August 2, 2013.
7. Despi t e t he unequi vocal l anguage of t he August 1 Or der , Lavabi t dal l i ed and di d not compl y. J ust bef or e t he 5: 00 pm August 2 deadl i ne, f or i nst ance, Levi son pr ovi ded t he FBI wi t h an 11- page pr i nt out cont ai ni ng l ar gel y i l l egi bl e char act er s i n 4- poi nt t ype, whi ch he r epr esent ed t o be Lavabi t s encr ypt i on keys. The Gover nment i nst r uct ed Lavabi t t o pr ovi de t he keys i n an i ndust r y- st andar d el ect r oni c f or mat by t he mor ni ng of August 5. Lavabi t di d not r espond. On August 5, near l y si x weeks af t er t he Gover nment f i r st obt ai ned t he Pen/ Tr ap Or der , t he Gover nment moved f or sanct i ons agai nst Levi son and Lavabi t f or t hei r cont i nui ng f ai l ur e t o Appeal: 13-4626 Doc: 65 Filed: 04/16/2014 Pg: 17 of 41 18
compl y wi t h [ t he] Cour t s or der ent er ed August 1. ( J . A. 120. ) The Gover nment sought penal t i es of $5, 000 a day unt i l Lavabi t pr ovi ded t he encr ypt i on keys t o t he Gover nment . The di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed t he mot i on f or sanct i ons t hat day. Two days l at er , Levi son pr ovi ded t he keys t o t he Gover nment . By t hat t i me, si x weeks of dat a r egar di ng t he t ar get had been l ost . 11
8. Lavabi t and Levi son t i mel y appeal ed, and we have j ur i sdi ct i on under 28 U. S. C. 1291. See Uni t ed St at es v. Myer s, 593 F. 3d 338, 344 n. 9 ( 4t h Ci r . 2010) ( [ A] ci vi l - cont empt or der may be i mmedi at el y appeal ed by a non[ - ] par t y [ t o t he under l yi ng act i on] . ) ; see al so Buf f i ngt on v. Bal t . Cnt y. , Md. , 913 F. 2d 113, 133 ( 4t h Ci r . 1990) ( expl ai ni ng t hat ci vi l cont empt i ncl udes a f i ne t hat woul d be payabl e t o t he cour t . . . when t he [ cont emnor ] can avoi d payi ng t he f i ne si mpl y by per f or mi ng t he af f i r mat i ve act r equi r ed by t he cour t s or der ) . We f ur t her not e t hat t he appeal pr esent s a l i ve cont r over sy even
11 Af t er Levi son pr ovi ded t he keys t o t he Gover nment , he al so shut Lavabi t down ent i r el y. I n a publ i c st at ement , Levi son di d not r eveal t he speci f i c r easons behi nd hi s deci si on t o cl ose Lavabi t . He di d post , however , a st at ement on t he Lavabi t websi t e expl ai ni ng t hat he woul d not become compl i ci t i n cr i mes agai nst t he Amer i can peopl e. Lavabi t , ht t p: / / www. l avabi t . com ( l ast vi si t ed Mar 3, 2014) . Appeal: 13-4626 Doc: 65 Filed: 04/16/2014 Pg: 18 of 41 19
t hough Lavabi t has now compl i ed wi t h t he under l yi ng or der s, as Lavabi t and Levi son st i l l f ace pot ent i al assessment s based on t hei r conduct i n r ef usi ng t o compl y wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t s or der s. See I n r e Gr and J ur y Subpoena ( T- 112) , 597 F. 3d 189, 195 ( 4t h Ci r . 2010) .
I I . A. As a par t y appeal i ng f r om a ci vi l cont empt or der , Lavabi t 12
may ask us t o consi der whet her cont empt was pr oper and may chal l enge t he or der al l eged t o have been vi ol at ed unl ess ear l i er appel l at e r evi ew was avai l abl e. Uni t ed St at es v. Myer s, 593 F. 3d at 344. I n t he or di nar y case, we r evi ew t he ul t i mat e deci si on as t o whet her t he cont empt was pr oper f or abuse of di scr et i on, t he under l yi ng l egal quest i ons de novo, I n r e Gr and J ur y Subpoena, 597 F. 3d at 195, and any f act ual f i ndi ngs f or cl ear er r or , Oaks of Mi d Ci t y Resi dent Counci l v. Sebel i us, 723 F. 3d 581, 584 ( 5t h Ci r . 2013) ; cf . Uni t ed St at es v. Peopl es, 698 F. 3d 185, 189 ( 4t h Ci r . 2012) ( same as t o cr i mi nal cont empt ) . Lavabi t f ai l ed, however , t o r ai se most of
12 For si mpl i ci t y s sake, we r ef er onl y t o Lavabi t f or t he r emai nder of t he opi ni on. That t er m, however , i ncl udes bot h Lavabi t and Levi son unl ess t he cont ext r ef l ect s ot her wi se. Appeal: 13-4626 Doc: 65 Filed: 04/16/2014 Pg: 19 of 41 20
i t s pr esent ar gument s bef or e t he di st r i ct cour t ; t hat f ai l ur e si gni f i cant l y al t er s t he st andar d of r evi ew.
B. I n t he di st r i ct cour t , Lavabi t f ai l ed t o chal l enge t he st at ut or y aut hor i t y f or t he Pen/ Tr ap Or der , or t he or der i t sel f , i n any way. Yet on appeal , Lavabi t suggest s t hat t he di st r i ct cour t s demand f or t he encr ypt i on keys r equi r ed mor e assi st ance f r om i t t han t he Pen/ Tr ap St at ut e r equi r es. Lavabi t never ment i oned or al l uded t o t he Pen/ Tr ap St at ut e bel ow, much l ess t he di st r i ct cour t s aut hor i t y t o act under t hat st at ut e. I n f act , wi t h t he possi bl e except i on of an undue bur den ar gument di r ect ed at t he sei zur e war r ant , Lavabi t never chal l enged t he di st r i ct cour t s aut hor i t y t o act under ei t her t he Pen/ Tr ap St at ut e or t he SCA. The mat t er of what quest i ons may be t aken up and r esol ved f or t he f i r st t i me on appeal i s one l ef t pr i mar i l y t o t he di scr et i on of t he cour t s of appeal s, t o be exer ci sed on t he f act s of i ndi vi dual cases. Si ngl et on v. Wul f f , 428 U. S. 106, 121 ( 1976) . I n t hi s ci r cui t , we exer ci se t hat di scr et i on spar i ngl y. Our set t l ed r ul e i s si mpl e: [ a] bsent except i onal ci r cumst ances, . . . we do not consi der i ssues r ai sed f or t he f i r st t i me on appeal . Robi nson v. Equi f ax I nf o. Ser vs. , LLC, 560 F. 3d 235, 242 ( 4t h Ci r . 2009) ; see al so Agr a, Gi l l & Duf f us, Appeal: 13-4626 Doc: 65 Filed: 04/16/2014 Pg: 20 of 41 21
I nc. v. Benson, 920 F. 2d 1173, 1176 ( 4t h Ci r . 1990) ( We wi l l not accept on appeal t heor i es t hat wer e not r ai sed i n t he di st r i ct cour t except under unusual ci r cumst ances. ) . When a par t y i n a ci vi l case f ai l s t o r ai se an ar gument i n t he l ower cour t and i nst ead r ai ses i t f or t he f i r st t i me bef or e us, we may r ever se onl y i f t he newl y r ai sed ar gument est abl i shes f undament al er r or or a deni al of f undament al j ust i ce. St ewar t v. Hal l , 770 F. 2d 1267, 1271 ( 4t h Ci r . 1985) . Fundament al er r or i s mor e l i mi t ed t han t he pl ai n er r or st andar d t hat we appl y i n cr i mi nal cases. I d. ; accor d Shcher bakovski y v. Da Capo Al Fi ne, Lt d. , 490 F. 3d 130, 142 ( 2d Ci r . 2007) ( To meet t hi s [ f undament al er r or ] st andar d, a par t y must demonst r at e even mor e t han i s necessar y t o meet t he pl ai n er r or st andar d i n a cr i mi nal t r i al . ) . So, when a par t y i n a ci vi l case f ai l s t o meet t he pl ai n- er r or st andar d, we can say wi t h conf i dence t hat he has not est abl i shed f undament al er r or . See, e. g. , I n r e Cel ot ex Cor p. , 124 F. 3d 619, 631 ( 4t h Ci r . 1997) ( descr i bi ng t he cr i mi nal pl ai n- er r or st andar d as a mi ni mum st andar d t hat must be met bef or e under t aki ng di scr et i onar y r evi ew of a wai ved ar gument i n a ci vi l case) . 13
13 Two t hi ngs mi ght expl ai n t he hi gher st andar d t hat appl i es i n ci vi l cases. Fi r st , Feder al Rul e of Cr i mi nal Pr ocedur e 52( b) af f or ds f eder al appel l at e cour t s t he di scr et i on t o cor r ect cer t ai n f or f ei t ed er r or s i n t he cr i mi nal cont ext , but i n t he ci vi l cont ext ( except i ng j ur y i nst r uct i ons) , such di scr et i on i s ( Cont i nued) Appeal: 13-4626 Doc: 65 Filed: 04/16/2014 Pg: 21 of 41 22
Thus, we may use t he cr i mi nal , pl ai n- er r or st andar d - ar t i cul at ed by Uni t ed St at es v. Ol ano, 507 U. S. 705, 730 ( 1993) - as somet hi ng of an i nt er medi at e st ep i n a ci vi l case. See, e. g. , Br i ckwood Cont r act or s, I nc. v. Dat anet Eng g, I nc. , 369 F. 3d 385, 396 ( 4t h Ci r . 2004) ( appl yi ng Ol ano st andar d i n ci vi l case) . Under t hat f ami l i ar st andar d, we cannot r ever se i f t he par t y f ai l s t o est abl i sh: ( 1) t her e i s an er r or ; ( 2) t he er r or i s pl ai n; ( 3) t he er r or af f ect s subst ant i al r i ght s; and ( 4) t he cour t det er mi nes . . . t hat t he er r or ser i ousl y af f ect s t he f ai r ness, i nt egr i t y or publ i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr oceedi ngs. Cel ot ex, 124 F. 3d at 630- 31. Even t he l esser showi ng needed f or [ p] l ai n er r or r evi ew i s st r i ct l y ci r cumscr i bed, and meet i ng al l f our pr ongs i s di f f i cul t , as i t shoul d be. Uni t ed St at es v. Byer s, 649 F. 3d 197, 213 ( 4t h Ci r . 2011) ( quot at i on mar ks and al t er at i on omi t t ed) . We empl oy t hese r ul es not t o t r ap unwar y l i t i gant s, but t o advance sever al i mpor t ant and obvi ous pur poses. Wheat l ey v. Wi comi co Cnt y. , Md. , 390 F. 3d 328, 335 ( 4t h Ci r . 2004) . Among
j udi ci al l y cr eat ed. Cel ot ex, 124 F. 3d 619, 630 n. 6 ( 4t h Ci r . 1997) . As a j udi ci al const r uct i on, i t shoul d be nar r owl y const r ued. Cf . I n r e ESA Envt l . Speci al i st s, I nc. , 70 F. 3d 388, 394 n. 5 ( 4t h Ci r . 2013) ( st at i ng t hat a j udi ci al l y cr eat ed except i on t o a r ul e shoul d be nar r owl y const r ued) . Second, pl ai n- er r or r evi ew ar ose i n t he cr i mi nal cont ext t o pr ot ect t he def endant s subst ant i al l i ber t y i nt er est s, but [ s] uch i nt er est s nor mal l y ar e not at st ake i n ci vi l l i t i gat i on. Deppe v. Tr i pp, 863 F. 2d 1356, 1364 ( 7t h Ci r . 1988) . Appeal: 13-4626 Doc: 65 Filed: 04/16/2014 Pg: 22 of 41 23
ot her t hi ngs, f or f ei t ur e and wai ver r ul es of f er r espect f or t he [ i nt egr i t y of t he] l ower cour t , [ avoi d] unf ai r sur pr i se t o t he ot her par t y, and [ acknowl edge] t he need f or f i nal i t y i n l i t i gat i on and conser vat i on of j udi ci al r esour ces. Hol l y Hi l l Far m, 447 F. 3d at 267. Our si st er ci r cui t s have suggest ed ot her r easons beyond t hese: wai ver r ul es ensur e t hat t he par t i es devel op t he necessar y evi dence bel ow, I n r e Di et Dr ugs Pr od. Li ab. Li t i g. , 706 F. 3d 217, 226 ( 3d Ci r . 2013) , and pr event par t i es f r om get t i ng t wo bi t es at t he appl e by r ai si ng t wo di st i nct ar gument s, Fl ei shman v. Cont l Cas. Co. , 698 F. 3d 598, 608 ( 7t h Ci r . 2012) ; see al so HTC Cor p. v. I PComGmbH & Co. , KG, 667 F. 3d 1270, 1282 ( Fed. Ci r . 2012) ( col l ect i ng cases) . The Supr eme Cour t has l i kewi se war ned us not t o l i ght l y di smi ss t he many i nt er est s under l yi ng pr eser vat i on r equi r ement s. See, e. g. , Wood v. Mi l yar d, 132 S. Ct . 1826, 1834 ( 2012) ( Due r egar d f or t he t r i al cour t s pr ocesses and t i me i nvest ment i s al so a consi der at i on appel l at e cour t s shoul d not over l ook. ) ; Exxon Shi ppi ng Co. v. Baker , 554 U. S. 471, 487 n. 6 ( 2008) ( [ T] he compl exi t y of a case does not el i mi nat e t he val ue of wai ver and f or f ei t ur e r ul es, whi ch ensur e t hat par t i es can det er mi ne when an i ssue i s out of t he case, and t hat l i t i gat i on r emai ns, t o t he ext ent possi bl e, an or der l y pr ogr essi on. ) . For f ei t ur e and wai ver pr i nci pl es appl y wi t h equal f or ce t o cont empt pr oceedi ngs. See, e. g. , I n r e Gat es, 600 F. 3d 333, 337 Appeal: 13-4626 Doc: 65 Filed: 04/16/2014 Pg: 23 of 41 24
( 4t h Ci r . 2010) ( appl yi ng pl ai n- er r or st andar d t o unpr eser ved cl ai m of er r or i n cr i mi nal cont empt pr oceedi ngs) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Neal , 101 F. 3d 993, 996 ( 4t h Ci r . 1996) ( same) . I f anyt hi ng, [ t ] he axi om t hat an appel l at e cour t wi l l not or di nar i l y consi der i ssues r ai sed f or t he f i r st t i me on appeal t akes on added si gni f i cance i n t he cont ext of cont empt . I n r e Bi anchi , 542 F. 2d 98, 100 ( 1st Ci r . 1976) ( i nt er nal ci t at i on omi t t ed) . Af t er al l , [ d] enyi ng t he cour t of whi ch [ a par t y] st ands i n cont empt t he oppor t uni t y t o consi der t he obj ect i on or r emedy i s i n i t sel f a cont empt of [ t hat cour t s] aut hor i t y and an obst r uct i on of i t s pr ocesses. I d. ( quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .
C. Lavabi t ar gues t hat i t pr eser ved an appel l at e chal l enge t o t he Pen/ Tr ap Or der when Levi son obj ect ed t o t ur ni ng over t he encr ypt i on keys at t he i ni t i al show cause hear i ng. We di sagr ee. I n maki ng hi s st at ement agai nst t ur ni ng over t he encr ypt i on keys t o t he Gover nment , Levi son of f er ed onl y a one- sent ence r emar k: I have onl y ever obj ect ed t o t ur ni ng over t he SSL keys because t hat woul d compr omi se al l of t he secur e communi cat i ons i n and out of my net wor k, i ncl udi ng my own admi ni st r at i ve t r af f i c. ( J . A. 42. ) Thi s st at ement - - whi ch we r eci t e her e ver bat i m- - const i t ut ed t he sumt ot al of t he onl y obj ect i on t hat Lavabi t ever r ai sed t o t he t ur nover of t he keys under t he Appeal: 13-4626 Doc: 65 Filed: 04/16/2014 Pg: 24 of 41 25
Pen/ Tr ap Or der . We cannot r ef ashi on t hi s vague st at ement of per sonal pr ef er ence i nt o anyt hi ng r emot el y cl ose t o t he ar gument t hat Lavabi t now r ai ses on appeal : a st at ut or y- t ext - based chal l enge t o t he di st r i ct cour t s f undament al aut hor i t y under t he Pen/ Tr ap St at ut e. Levi son s st at ement t o t he di st r i ct cour t si mpl y r ef l ect ed hi s per sonal angst over compl yi ng wi t h t he Pen/ Tr ap Or der , not hi s pr esent appel l at e ar gument t hat quest i ons whet her t he di st r i ct cour t possessed t he aut hor i t y t o act at al l . Ar gument s r ai sed i n a t r i al cour t must be speci f i c and i n l i ne wi t h t hose r ai sed on appeal . To pr eser ve an i ssue f or appeal , an obj ect i on [ or ar gument ] must be t i mel y and st at e t he gr ounds on whi ch i t i s based. Kol l sman, a Di v. of Sequa Cor p. v. Cohen, 996 F. 2d 702, 707 ( 4t h Ci r . 1993) . I t f ol l ows t hen t hat an obj ect i on on one gr ound does not pr eser ve obj ect i ons based on di f f er ent gr ounds. Uni t ed St at es v. Massenbur g, 564 F. 3d 337, 342 n. 2 ( 4t h Ci r . 2009) . 14 Si mi l ar l y, a par t y does not go f ar enough by r ai si ng a non- speci f i c obj ect i on or cl ai m.
14 We have emphasi zed t hi s poi nt many t i mes bef or e. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Zayyad, 741 F. 3d 452, 459 ( 4t h Ci r . 2014) ( To pr eser ve an ar gument on appeal , t he [ par t y] must obj ect on t he same basi s bel ow as he cont ends i s er r or on appeal . ) ; Laber v. Har vey, 438 F. 3d 404, 429 n. 24 ( 4t h Ci r . 2006) ( These ar e di f f er ent ar gument s ent i r el y, and maki ng t he one does not pr eser ve t he ot her . ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Bani sadr Bl dg. J oi nt Vent ur e, 65 F. 3d 374, 379 ( 4t h Ci r . 1995) ( [ A] t heor y not r ai sed at t r i al cannot be r ai sed on appeal . ) . Appeal: 13-4626 Doc: 65 Filed: 04/16/2014 Pg: 25 of 41 26
[ I ] f a par t y wi shes t o pr eser ve an ar gument f or appeal , t he par t y must pr ess and not mer el y i nt i mat e t he ar gument dur i ng t he pr oceedi ngs bef or e t he di st r i ct cour t . Dal l as Gas Par t ner s, L. P. v. Pr ospect Ener gy Cor p. , 733 F. 3d 148, 157 ( 5t h Ci r . 2013) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Bennet t , 698 F. 3d 194, 199 ( 4t h Ci r . 2012) ( f i ndi ng def endant wai ved ar gument wher e hi s ar gument bel ow was t oo gener al t o al er t t he di st r i ct cour t t o t he speci f i c [ obj ect i on] ) . I n ar gui ng t hat i t can st i l l pur sue t he i ssue despi t e i t s f ai l ur e t o r ai se any speci f i c ar gument chal l engi ng t he Pen/ Tr ap Or der bel ow, Lavabi t gi ves f ar t oo br oad a r eadi ng t o Yee v. Ci t y of Escondi do, 503 U. S. 519, 534 ( 1992) . Yee expl ai ned t hat , [ o] nce a f eder al cl ai mi s pr oper l y pr esent ed, a par t y can make any ar gument i n suppor t of t hat cl ai m; par t i es ar e not l i mi t ed t o t he pr eci se ar gument s t hey made bel ow. 503 U. S. at 534. We, t oo, have r ecogni zed our need t o consi der any t heor y pl ai nl y encompassed by t he submi ssi ons i n t he under l yi ng l i t i gat i on. Vol vo Const r . Equi p. N. Am. , I nc. v. CLM Equi p. Co. , 386 F. 3d 581, 604 ( 4t h Ci r . 2004) . Yet Lavabi t nei t her pl ai nl y nor pr oper l y i dent i f i ed t hese i ssues f or t he di st r i ct cour t , and a compar i son bet ween t hi s case and Yee i l l ust r at es why. I n Yee, t he par t i es r ai sed bef or e t he di st r i ct cour t a Fi f t h Amendment t aki ngs cl ai m pr emi sed on physi cal occupat i on. 503 U. S. at 53435. Bef or e Appeal: 13-4626 Doc: 65 Filed: 04/16/2014 Pg: 26 of 41 27
t he Supr eme Cour t , however , t hey ar gued t hat t he t aki ng occur r ed by r egul at i on. I d. The di f f er ence i n f or mt her e was i mmat er i al because t he appeal i ng par t y asked bot h cour t s t o eval uat e t he same f undament al quest i on: whet her t he chal l enged act s const i t ut ed a t aki ng. I n ot her wor ds, t he appel l ant / pet i t i oner i n Yee r ai sed t wo var i at i ons of t he same basi c ar gument . I n cont r ast , t he di f f er ence i n t he case at bar i s mar ked and mat er i al : Lavabi t never chal l enged t he st at ut or y val i di t y of t he Pen/ Tr ap Or der bel ow or t he cour t s aut hor i t y t o act . To t he cont r ar y, Lavabi t s onl y poi nt bel ow al l uded t o t he pot ent i al damage t hat compl i ance coul d cause t o i t s chosen busi ness model . 15
Nei t her t he di st r i ct cour t nor t he Gover nment t her ef or e had any si gnal f r om Lavabi t t hat i t cont est ed t he di st r i ct cour t s aut hor i t y under t he Pen/ Tr ap St at ut e t o ent er t he Pen/ Tr ap Or der or t he J une 28t h Or der . I n f act , by concedi ng at t he August 1 hear i ng t hat t he [ G] over nment [ was] ent i t l ed t o t he [ r equest ed] i nf or mat i on, i t l i kel y l ed t he di st r i ct cour t t o bel i eve exact l y t he opposi t e. ( J . A. 108. ) Accor di ngl y, Lavabi t f ai l ed t o pr eser ve any i ssue f or appeal r el at ed t o t he Pen/ Tr ap St at ut e or t he di st r i ct cour t s aut hor i t y t o act under i t . See Nel son
15 We mi ght char act er i ze t hi s ar gument as some t ype of undue bur den chal l enge. But , on appeal , Lavabi t does not r ai se any undue bur den ar gument as t o t he Pen/ Tr ap Or der . I nst ead, i t l i mi t s i t s bur den ar gument s t o t he sei zur e war r ant . Appeal: 13-4626 Doc: 65 Filed: 04/16/2014 Pg: 27 of 41 28
v. Adams USA, I nc. , 529 U. S. 460, 469 ( 2000) ( [ T] he gener al r ul e t hat i ssues must be r ai sed i n l ower cour t s i n or der t o be pr eser ved as pot ent i al gr ounds of deci si on i n hi gher cour t s . . . r equi r es t hat t he l ower cour t be f ai r l y put on not i ce as t o t he subst ance of t he i ssue. ) .
D. Lavabi t cont ends t hat , even i f i t f ai l ed t o r ai se a cogni zabl e obj ect i on t o t he Pen/ Tr ap Or der i n t he di st r i ct cour t , t hen t he Gover nment and t he di st r i ct cour t i nduced i t t o f or f ei t i t s pr esent chal l enges. We know of no case r ecogni zi ng an i nvi t ed or i nduced wai ver except i on t o t he t r adi t i onal f or f ei t ur e and wai ver pr i nci pl es. Lavabi t has not i dent i f i ed any basi s f or such an except i on, ot her t han i t s subj ect i ve bel i ef t hat i t i s now i n an unf ai r posi t i on. But t hat i s not an ar gument t hat per mi t s us t o cast asi de t he wel l - under st ood i nt er est s under l yi ng our pr eser vat i on r equi r ement s. Cf . Hawki ns v. Uni t ed St at es, 724 F. 3d 915, 918 ( 7t h Ci r . 2013) ( Fi nal i t y i s an i nst i t ut i onal val ue and i t i s t empt i ng t o subor di nat e such a val ue t o t he equi t i es of t he i ndi vi dual case. But t her e ar e danger s, especi al l y i f so vague a t er m as f ai r ness i s t o be t he t ouchst one. ) . Appeal: 13-4626 Doc: 65 Filed: 04/16/2014 Pg: 28 of 41 29
I n any event , we di sagr ee wi t h Lavabi t s f act ual pr emi se, as nei t her t he Gover nment nor t he di st r i ct cour t i nduced or i nvi t ed Lavabi t t o wai ve anyt hi ng. The Gover nment di d not l ead Lavabi t t o bel i eve t hat t he Pen/ Tr ap Or der was somehow i r r el evant . To be sur e, t he Gover nment f ocused mor e on t he sei zur e war r ant t han t he Pen/ Tr ap Or der at cer t ai n t i mes i n t he pr oceedi ngs. At t he August 1 hear i ng, f or exampl e, t he Gover nment concent r at ed on t he sei zur e war r ant and t he l at er - wi t hdr awn gr and j ur y subpoena because t he mot i on under consi der at i on - Lavabi t s mot i on t o quash - - onl y addr essed t hose t wo obj ect s. The Gover nment , however , never st opped cont endi ng t hat t he Pen/ Tr ap Or der , i n and of i t sel f , al so r equi r ed Lavabi t t o t ur n over t he encr ypt i on keys. For exampl e, t he Gover nment speci f i cal l y i nvoked t he Pen/ Tr ap Or der i n i t s wr i t t en r esponse t o Lavabi t s mot i on t o quash by not i ng t hat f our separ at e l egal obl i gat i ons r equi r ed Lavabi t t o pr ovi de i t s encr ypt i on keys, i ncl udi ng t he Pen/ Tr ap Or der and t he J une 28 Or der . ( J . A. 86. ) I f Lavabi t t r ul y bel i eved t he Pen/ Tr ap Or der t o be an i nval i d r equest f or t he encr ypt i on keys, t hen t he Gover nment s cont i nui ng r el i ance on t hat or der shoul d have spur r ed Lavabi t t o chal l enge i t . The di st r i ct cour t s act i ons al so put Lavabi t on not i ce t hat t he Pen/ Tr ap Or der i mpl i cat ed Lavabi t s encr ypt i on keys. The J une 28 Or der r ef er r ed t o encr ypt i on, and t he August 1 or der Appeal: 13-4626 Doc: 65 Filed: 04/16/2014 Pg: 29 of 41 30
compel l i ng Lavabi t t o t ur n over i t s keys r el i ed upon t wo i ndependent sour ces of aut hor i t y: t he J ul y 16, 2013 sei zur e war r ant and t he J une 28, 2013 [ Pen/ Tr ap Or der ] . ( J . A. 119 ( emphasi s added) . ) The August 1 Or der , wi t h i t s pl ai n and unequi vocal ci t at i on t o t he Pen/ Tr ap Or der , i nf or med Lavabi t t hat t he Pen/ Tr ap Or der needed t o be addr essed because i t was t he ci t ed aut hor i t y f or t he t ur nover of t he encr ypt i on keys. Even i f t he di st r i ct cour t had ear l i er equi vocat ed about whet her t he Pen/ Tr ap Or der r eached Lavabi t s encr ypt i on keys, t hose doubt s wer e di spel l ed once t he August 1 Or der i ssued. 16 When t he t er ms of a j udgment conf l i ct wi t h ei t her a wr i t t en or or al opi ni on or obser vat i on, t he j udgment must gover n. Mur daugh Vol kswagen, I nc. v. Fi r st Nat l Bank of S. C. , 741 F. 2d 41, 44 ( 4t h Ci r . 1984) ; see al so i d. ( Cour t s must speak by or der s and j udgment s, not by opi ni ons, whet her wr i t t en or or al , or by chance obser vat i ons or expr essed i nt ent i ons made by cour t s dur i ng, bef or e or af t er t r i al , or dur i ng ar gument . ) . At an absol ut e mi ni mum, i f Lavabi t bel i eved t hat t he t ur nover of t he keys was i nval i d under t he Pen/ Tr ap Or der , t hen i t shoul d have
16 Si mi l ar l y, i f Lavabi t bel i eved t hat t he di st r i ct cour t mi st akenl y r el i ed upon t he Pen/ Tr ap Or der i n i t s August 1 Or der , t hen i t shoul d have moved t he di st r i ct cour t t o r evi se i t s or der . See Segar s. v. At l . Coast Li ne R. R. Co. , 286 F. 2d 767, 770 ( 4t h Ci r . 1961) ( f i ndi ng t hat par t y wai ved ar gument t hat wr i t t en or der di d not conf or m wi t h t r i al cour t s act ual f i ndi ngs, wher e par t y di d not move t o r evi se or der bel ow) . Appeal: 13-4626 Doc: 65 Filed: 04/16/2014 Pg: 30 of 41 31
act ed once t he di st r i ct cour t s August 1 or der i ssued. I t di d not .
E. Lavabi t t ender s ot her r easons why we shoul d exer ci se our di scr et i on t o hear i t s Pen/ Tr ap St at ut e ar gument , but we f i nd no mer i t i n t hose ar gument s. We doubt t hat Lavabi t s l i st ed f act or s coul d ever j ust i f y de novo r evi ew of an ar gument r ai sed f or t he f i r st t i me on appeal i n a ci vi l case i n t hi s ci r cui t . Many year s ago, t hi s ci r cui t hel d t hat , at a mi ni mum, t he r equi r ement s of [ t he pl ai n- er r or st andar d] must be sat i sf i ed bef or e we may exer ci se our di scr et i on t o cor r ect an er r or not r ai sed bel ow i n a ci vi l case. I n r e Cel ot ex, 124 F. 3d at 631 ( emphasi s added) . I t makes no di f f er ence t hen t hat Lavabi t s Pen/ Tr ap St at ut e ar gument pr esent s a supposedl y pur e quest i on of l aw ( Repl y Br . 6) , or t hat Lavabi t was unr epr esent ed dur i ng some of t he pr oceedi ngs bel ow, or t hat Lavabi t bel i eves t hi s case t o be one of publ i c concer n ( Repl y Br . 6) . At t he out set , we do not agr ee t hat t he i ssue i s a pur el y l egal one. At t he ver y l east , i nt er pr et i ng t he Pen/ Tr ap St at ut e s t hi r d- par t y- assi st ance pr ovi si on woul d r equi r e us t o consi der t echnol ogi cal quest i ons of f act t hat have l i t t l e t o do wi t h pur e l aw. But even i f t he quest i on wer e l egal , t hat woul d not al one j ust i f y our r evi ew. Though some ci r cui t s wi l l Appeal: 13-4626 Doc: 65 Filed: 04/16/2014 Pg: 31 of 41 32
somet i mes put asi de t he pl ai n- er r or f r amewor k when a case pr esent s t hi s sor t of quest i on, see, e. g. , Vi l l as at Par ksi de Par t ner s v. Ci t y of Far mer s Br anch, 726 F. 3d 524, 582 n. 26 ( 5t h Ci r . 2013) , our pr ecedent s do not embr ace t hat appr oach. To t he cont r ar y, we have t aken a mor e st r uct ur ed vi ew, r ecogni zi ng t hat t he f or f ei t ur e r ul e i s a sal ut ar y r ul e even wher e t he gr ound ur ged f or r ever sal i s a pur e quest i on of l aw. Legg s Est at e v. Comm r , 114 F. 2d 760, 766 ( 4t h Ci r . 1940) ; accor d Ri chi son v. Er nest Gr p. , I nc. , 634 F. 3d 1123, 112830 ( 10t h Ci r . 2011) ( r ej ect i ng a par t y s cont ent i on t hat a f or f ei t ed but pur el y l egal i ssue coul d be consi der ed out si de t he pl ai n- er r or f r amewor k) . Nor does i t mat t er t hat Lavabi t and Levi son wer e unr epr esent ed by counsel dur i ng par t s of t he pr oceedi ngs bel ow. 17
17 As a l i mi t ed l i abi l i t y company, Lavabi t l i kel y shoul d not have been per mi t t ed t o pr oceed pr o se at al l . I t has been t he l aw f or t he bet t er par t of t wo cent ur i es, f or exampl e, t hat a cor por at i on may appear i n t he f eder al cour t s onl y t hr ough l i censed counsel . As t he cour t s have r ecogni zed, t he r at i onal e f or t hat r ul e appl i es equal l y t o al l ar t i f i ci al ent i t i es. Thus, save i n a f ew aber r ant cases, t he l ower cour t s have uni f or ml y hel d t hat 28 U. S. C. 1654, pr ovi di ng t hat par t i es may pl ead and conduct t hei r own cases per sonal l y or by counsel , does not al l ow cor por at i ons, par t ner shi ps, or associ at i ons t o appear i n f eder al cour t ot her wi se t han t hr ough a l i censed at t or ney. Rowl and v. Cal . Men s Col ony, Uni t I I Men s Advi sor y Counci l , 506 U. S. 194, 202 ( 1993) ( f oot not e omi t t ed) ; see al so, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Hager man, 545 F. 3d 579, 58182 ( 7t h Ci r . 2008) ( hol di ng t hat LLCs may not pr oceed pr o se) ; Uni t ed St at es ex r el . Mer gent Ser vs. v. Fl aher t y, 540 F. 3d 89, 92 ( 2d Ci r . 2008) ( Cont i nued) Appeal: 13-4626 Doc: 65 Filed: 04/16/2014 Pg: 32 of 41 33
Al t hough pr o se compl ai nt s [ and ar gument s] ar e t o be l i ber al l y const r ued, t he f ai l ur e t o f i r st pr esent cl ai ms t o t he di st r i ct cour t gener al l y f or ecl oses our consi der at i on of t hese mat t er s on appeal . Uni t ed St at es v. Fer guson, 918 F. 2d 627, 630 ( 6t h Ci r . 1990) ; cf . Wi l l i ams v. Ozmi nt , 716 F. 3d 801, 81011 ( 4t h Ci r . 2013) ( We l ong have r ecogni zed t hat , despi t e our expansi ve consi der at i on of t he pl eadi ngs of pr o se l i t i gant s, . . . appel l at e cour t s shoul d not per mi t . . . f l eet i ng r ef er ences t o pr eser ve quest i ons on appeal . ) . Nei t her t hi s Cour t nor t he Supr eme Cour t has ever suggest ed t hat pr ocedur al r ul es i n or di nar y ci vi l l i t i gat i on shoul d be i nt er pr et ed so as t o excuse mi st akes by t hose who pr oceed wi t hout counsel . McNei l v. Uni t ed St at es, 508 U. S. 106, 113 ( 1993) . Especi al l y gi ven Lavabi t s on- agai n- of f - agai n r el at i onshi p wi t h var i ous l egal counsel , no r eason exi st s t o do so her e. 18
Fi nal l y, Lavabi t pr oposes t hat we hear i t s chal l enge t o t he Pen/ Tr ap Or der because Lavabi t vi ews t he case as a mat t er of i mmense publ i c concer n. ( Repl y Br . 6. ) Yet t her e exi st s a per haps gr eat er publ i c i nt er est i n br i ngi ng l i t i gat i on t o an
( expl ai ni ng t hat l ay per sons cannot r epr esent cor por at i ons, par t ner shi ps, or l i mi t ed l i abi l i t y compani es) .
18 Li t i gat i ng t hi s case di d not evi dent l y pr esent any par t i cul ar f i nanci al har dshi p, as Lavabi t and Levi son have never cl ai med a l ack of f unds as a r eason f or t hei r somet i mes- pr o- se st at us. Appeal: 13-4626 Doc: 65 Filed: 04/16/2014 Pg: 33 of 41 34
end af t er f ai r oppor t uni t y has been af f or ded t o pr esent al l i ssues of l aw and f act . Uni t ed St at es v. At ki nson, 297 U. S. 157, 159 ( 1936) . And exhumi ng f or f ei t ed ar gument s when t hey i nvol ve mat t er s of publ i c concer n woul d pr esent pr act i cal di f f i cul t i es. For one t hi ng, i dent i f yi ng cases of a publ i c concer n and non- publ i c concer n - di vor ced f r om any ot her consi der at i on - i s a t r i cky t ask gover ned by no obj ect i ve st andar ds. See, e. g. , Tony A. Wei gand, Rai se or Lose: Appel l at e Di scr et i on and Pr i nci pl ed Deci si on- Maki ng, 17 Suf f ol k J . Tr i al & App. Advoc. 179, 28087 ( 2012) ( descr i bi ng vagueness and ot her pr obl ems wi t h a publ i c i mpor t ance appr oach) ; Bar r y A. Mi l l er , Sua Spont e Appel l at e Rul i ngs: When Cour t s Depr i ve Li t i gant s of an Oppor t uni t y t o Be Hear d, 39 San Di ego L. Rev. 1253, 130607 ( 2002) ( [ W] hat i s an i mpor t ant publ i c i nt er est t o one cour t wi l l be uni mpor t ant t o anot her . The l i ne wi l l be par t i cul ar l y di f f i cul t t o dr aw and wi l l of t en appear nakedl y pol i t i cal . ) . For anot her t hi ng, i f an i ssue i s of publ i c concer n, t hat concer n i s l i kel y mor e r eason t o avoi d deci di ng i t f r om a l ess- t han- f ul l y l i t i gat ed r ecor d. See, e. g. , Ki ngman Par k Ci vi c Ass n v. Wi l l i ams, 348 F. 3d 1033, 1039 ( D. C. Ci r . 2003) ( The i ssue pr esent ed, however , i s of suf f i ci ent publ i c i mpor t ance and compl exi t y t o counsel st r ongl y agai nst deci di ng i t i n t hi s post ur e. ) ; Car ducci v. Regan, 714 F. 2d 171, 177 ( D. C. Ci r . 1983) ( r ef usi ng t o excuse pr ocedur al wai ver wher e case i nvol ved Appeal: 13-4626 Doc: 65 Filed: 04/16/2014 Pg: 34 of 41 35
i mpor t ant quest i ons of f ar - r eachi ng si gni f i cance) . Accor di ngl y, we decl i ne t o hear Lavabi t s new ar gument s mer el y because Lavabi t bel i eves t hemt o be i mpor t ant . I n sum, Lavabi t s assor t ed r easons t o exer ci se any di scr et i onar y r evi ew aut hor i t y do not convi nce us t o r evi ew i t s Pen/ Tr ap St at ut e ar gument s de novo. I f Lavabi t i s t o succeed on i t s Pen/ Tr ap St at ut e cl ai m, i t must at l east show pl ai n er r or .
I I I . A. The Pen/ Tr ap St at ut e r equi r es l aw enf or cement aut hor i t i es t o obt ai n cour t or der s t o i nst al l and use pen r egi st er s and t r ap/ t r ace devi ces. The r equi r ement s f or t hese or der s ar e l ess oner ous t han t he r equi r ement s t hat appl y t o Gover nment r equest s f or t he cont ent of communi cat i ons, as pen/ t r ap devi ces do not col l ect cont ent but onl y i nf or mat i on associ at ed wi t h t he t r ansf er of t hat cont ent . 19 As t o i nt er net communi cat i ons, pen/ t r ap devi ces col l ect onl y met adat a, such as an emai l s To: and Fr om: f i el ds, t he dat e and t i me of t r ansmi ssi ons, and user l ogi n i nf or mat i on. See 18 U. S. C. 3127( 3) , ( 4) ( f or bi ddi ng pen
19 For exampl e, i n t he mor e hi st or i cal l y common use of a pen/ t r ap devi ce on a l andl i ne t el ephone, t he onl y i nf or mat i on col l ect ed woul d be i nf or mat i on such as t he t el ephone number s of i ncomi ng and out goi ng cal l s. Appeal: 13-4626 Doc: 65 Filed: 04/16/2014 Pg: 35 of 41 36
r egi st er s and t r ap/ t r ace devi ces f r om col l ect i ng t he cont ent s of any communi cat i on) . The Pen/ Regi st er St at ut e al so i ncl udes pr ovi si ons r equi r i ng t hi r d par t i es t o pr ovi de t echni cal assi st ance t o t he Gover nment i n connect i on wi t h t hose devi ces. See 18 U. S. C. 3124( a) , ( b) . Under t he pen- r egi st er pr ovi si on, f or i nst ance, Lavabi t must pr ovi de: al l i nf or mat i on, f aci l i t i es, and t echni cal assi st ance necessar y t o accompl i sh t he i nst al l at i on of t he pen r egi st er unobt r usi vel y and wi t h a mi ni mum of i nt er f er ence wi t h t he ser vi ces t hat t he per son so or der ed by t he cour t accor ds t he par t y wi t h r espect t o whomt he i nst al l at i on and use i s t o t ake pl ace. I d. 3124( a) . Si mi l ar l y, under t he t r ap/ t r ace pr ovi si on, Lavabi t must f ur ni sh: al l addi t i onal i nf or mat i on, f aci l i t i es and t echni cal assi st ance i ncl udi ng i nst al l at i on and oper at i on of t he devi ce unobt r usi vel y and wi t h a mi ni mum of i nt er f er ence wi t h t he ser vi ces t hat t he per son so or der ed by t he cour t accor ds t he par t y wi t h r espect t o whom t he i nst al l at i on and use i s t o t ake pl ace, i f such i nst al l at i on and assi st ance i s di r ect ed by a cour t or der as pr ovi ded i n sect i on 3123( b) ( 2) of t hi s t i t l e. I d. 3124( b) ( emphasi s added) . Thus, Sect i ons 3124( a) and ( b) ar e si mi l ar , but not i dent i cal . The pen- r egi st er pr ovi si on r ef er s onl y t o i nf or mat i on necessar y t o accompl i sh t he i nst al l at i on, i d. 3124( a) , whi l e t he t r ap/ t r ace pr ovi si on r ef er ences i nf or mat i on i ncl udi ng i nst al l at i on and oper at i on, i d. 3124( b) . Appeal: 13-4626 Doc: 65 Filed: 04/16/2014 Pg: 36 of 41 37
B. Lavabi t now ar gues t hat t he t hi r d- par t y- assi st ance pr ovi si ons f ound i n Sect i ons 3124( a) and ( b) do not r each t he SSL keys. I t r eads t hose pr ovi si ons t o r equi r e onl y enough assi st ance t o at t ach t he pen/ t r ap devi ce t o Lavabi t s syst em, not any assi st ance necessar y t o make t he devi ce oper at i onal l y ef f ect i ve. Fur t her , Lavabi t cont ends t hat i t needed t o of f er onl y enough hel p t o make t he i nst al l at i on unobt r usi ve. And i t i nsi st s t hat Congr ess never coul d have i nt ended t o gr ant t he Gover nment t he br oad power t o ask f or encr ypt i on keys t hr ough t he mor e gener al l anguage f ound i n t he t hi r d- par t y- assi st ance pr ovi si ons. Al l t hese new ar gument s not wi t hst andi ng, Lavabi t f ai l ed t o make i t s most essent i al ar gument anywher e i n i t s br i ef s or at or al ar gument : i t never cont ended t hat t he di st r i ct cour t f undament al l y or even pl ai nl y er r ed i n r el yi ng on t he Pen/ Tr ap St at ut e t o compel Lavabi t t o pr oduce i t s keys. Yet Lavabi t bear s t he bur den of showi ng, at a mi ni mum, pl ai n er r or . Cf . Uni t ed St at es v. Car t hor ne, 726 F. 3d 503, 510 ( 4t h Ci r . 2013) ( not i ng, i n cr i mi nal cont ext , t hat t he appeal i ng def endant bear s t he bur den of showi ng pl ai n er r or ) ; see al so, e. g. , Aber nat hy v. Wandes, 713 F. 3d 538, 553 n. 12 ( 10t h Ci r . 2003) ( not i ng i n ci vi l cont ext t hat t he par t y t hat f ai l ed t o pr eser ve hi s ar gument bear s t he bur den of showi ng pl ai n er r or ) . And [ a] par t y s Appeal: 13-4626 Doc: 65 Filed: 04/16/2014 Pg: 37 of 41 38
f ai l ur e t o r ai se or di scuss an i ssue i n hi s br i ef i s t o be deemed an abandonment of t hat i ssue. Mayf i el d v. Nat l Ass n f or St ock Car Aut o Raci ng, I nc. , 674 F. 3d 369, 377 ( 4t h Ci r . 2012) ; see al so I GEN I nt l , I nc. v. Roche Di agnost i cs GmbH, 335 F. 3d 303, 308 ( 4t h Ci r . 2003) ( Fai l ur e t o pr esent or ar gue assi gnment s of er r or i n openi ng appel l at e br i ef s const i t ut es a wai ver of t hose i ssues. ) . Taken t oget her , t hese t wo pr i nci pl es car r y us t o one i nevi t abl e concl usi on: Lavabi t s f ai l ur e t o ar gue f or pl ai n er r or and i t s appl i cat i on on appeal . . . sur el y mar ks t he end of t he r oad f or [ i t s] ar gument f or r ever sal not f i r st pr esent ed t o t he di st r i ct cour t . Ri chi son, 634 F. 3d at 1131; see al so J ackson v. Par ker , 627 F. 3d 634, 640 ( 7t h Ci r . 2010) ( r ej ect i ng par t y s pl ai n er r or ar gument wher e, among ot her t hi ngs, he ha[ d] not made an at t empt - ei t her i n hi s br i ef s or at or al ar gument - t o show t hat t he el ement s f or pl ai n er r or r evi ew ha[ d] been sat i sf i ed) . Lavabi t abandoned any ar gument t hat t he di st r i ct cour t pl ai nl y er r ed, much l ess f undament al l y er r ed, i n r el yi ng upon t he Pen/ Tr ap Or der t o f i nd Lavabi t i n cont empt . Mor eover , Lavabi t f ai l s t o i dent i f y any pot ent i al deni al of f undament al j ust i ce t hat woul d j ust i f y f ur t her r evi ew. For t he same r eason, t hen, Lavabi t has abandoned t hat ar gument as wel l .
C. We r ei t er at e t hat our r evi ew i s ci r cumscr i bed by t he ar gument s t hat Lavabi t r ai sed bel ow and i n t hi s Cour t . We t ake t hi s nar r ow cour se because an appel l at e cour t i s not a f r eest andi ng open f or um f or t he di scussi on of esot er i c hypot het i cal quest i ons. See Swann v. Char l ot t e- Meckl enbur g Bd. of Educ. , 489 F. 2d 966, 967 ( 4t h Ci r . 1974) ( [ The] Cour t does not si t t o r ender deci si ons on abst r act l egal pr oposi t i ons or advi sor y opi ni ons. ) . Rat her , we adj udi cat e t he l egal ar gument s act ual l y r ai sed. See Er i l i n Co. S. A. v. J ohnson, 440 F. 3d 648, 654 ( 4t h Ci r . 2006) ( obser vi ng t hat our syst em of j ust i ce i s one i n whi ch t he par t i es ar e obl i ged t o pr esent f act s and l egal ar gument s bef or e a neut r al and r el at i vel y passi ve deci si on- maker ) . Our concl usi on, t hen, must t i e back t o t he cont empt , as t he act ual or der on appeal , and t he pr oceedi ngs bel ow, as t he r ecor d t hat const r ai ns us.
I V. Lavabi t al so r ai ses sever al chal l enges t o t he sei zur e war r ant , but we need not , shoul d not , and do not r each t hose ar gument s. The di st r i ct cour t s or der s compel l i ng Lavabi t t o t ur n over i t s encr ypt i on keys r el i ed on t wo, separ at e i ndependent gr ounds: t he Pen/ Tr ap Or der and t he sei zur e war r ant . Thus, t he cour t s l at er f i ndi ng of cont empt f ound t hat Lavabi t Appeal: 13-4626 Doc: 65 Filed: 04/16/2014 Pg: 39 of 41 40
vi ol at ed bot h t he t wo pr i or or der s. When t wo i ndependent bases suppor t a di st r i ct cour t s cont empt or der , i t i s enough f or us t o f i nd t hat one of t hose bases was appr opr i at e. See Consol . Coal Co. v. Local 1702, Uni t ed Mi newor ker s of Am. , 683 F. 2d 827, 83132 ( 4t h Ci r . 1982) ( decl i ni ng t o addr ess second of t wo i ndependent bases f or cont empt or der wher e f i r st basi s was pr oper l y af f i r med) . Thi s cont empt - speci f i c r ul e f l ows f r om t he mor e gener al maxi m t hat , [ t ] o obt ai n r ever sal of a di st r i ct cour t j udgment based on mul t i pl e, i ndependent gr ounds, an appel l ant must convi nce us t hat ever y st at ed gr ound f or t he j udgment agai nst hi m i s i ncor r ect . Sapuppo v. Al l st at e Fl or i di an I ns. Co. , 739 F. 3d 678, 680 ( 11t h Ci r . 2014) . Fur t her mor e, some of Lavabi t s addi t i onal ar gument s i mpl i cat e const i t ut i onal concer ns. Those concer ns pr ovi de even mor e r eason t o avoi d addr essi ng Lavabi t s new ar gument s. The pr i nci pl e of const i t ut i onal avoi dance . . . r equi r es t he f eder al cour t s t o avoi d r ender i ng const i t ut i onal r ul i ngs unl ess absol ut el y necessar y. Nor f ol k S. Ry. Co. v. Ci t y of Al exandr i a, 608 F. 3d 150, 157 ( 4t h Ci r . 2010) ( ci t i ng Ashwander v. Tenn. Val l ey Aut h. , 297 U. S. 288, 347 ( 1936) ( Br andei s, J . , concur r i ng) ) ; see al so Bel l At l . Md. , I nc. v. Pr i nce Geor ge s Cnt y. , Md. , 212 F. 3d 863, 865 ( 4t h Ci r . 2000) ( [ C] our t s shoul d avoi d deci di ng const i t ut i onal quest i ons unl ess t hey ar e essent i al t o t he di sposi t i on of a case. ) . So, we wi l l not Appeal: 13-4626 Doc: 65 Filed: 04/16/2014 Pg: 40 of 41 41
deci de a const i t ut i onal quest i on, par t i cul ar l y a compl i cat ed const i t ut i onal quest i on, i f anot her gr ound adequat el y di sposes of t he cont r over sy. St r awser v. At ki ns, 290 F. 3d 720, 730 ( 4t h Ci r . 2002) . The l ong- est abl i shed const i t ut i onal - avoi dance r ul e appl i es squar el y t o t hi s case.
V. I n vi ew of Lavabi t s wai ver of i t s appel l at e ar gument s by f ai l i ng t o r ai se t hem i n t he di st r i ct cour t , and i t s f ai l ur e t o r ai se t he i ssue of f undament al or pl ai n er r or r evi ew, t her e i s no cogni zabl e basi s upon whi ch t o chal l enge t he Pen/ Tr ap Or der . The di st r i ct cour t di d not er r , t hen, i n f i ndi ng Lavabi t and Levi son i n cont empt once t hey admi t t edl y vi ol at ed t hat or der . The j udgment of t he di st r i ct cour t i s t her ef or e AFFI RMED. Appeal: 13-4626 Doc: 65 Filed: 04/16/2014 Pg: 41 of 41