govinfo:USCOURTS-ksd-2_24-cr-20070-18

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 P l a i n t i f f , 
v. Case No. 24-20070-DDC 
NEWTON JONES (01), 
WILLIAM CREEDEN (02), 
KATERYNA JONES (03), 
LAWRENCE MCMANAMON (05), 
 
 Defendants. 
 
MEMORANDUM OPINION 
 
 Defendant Newton Jones filed a renewed motion for the issuance of a Rule 17(c) 
subpoena based on the court’s May 22, 2026, oral ruling. There, the court clarified how time 
interacts with the attorney/client privilege subject-matter waiver instigated by IBB’s September 
2022 Memorandum. The court explained that the subject-matter waiver in this case—even as 
narrowly construed—extends to communications on the same subject matter that occurred during 
the timeframe of the Indictment, 2009 to 2023. Mr. Jones asserts that this revises the court’s 
prior ruling on the waiver’s temporal scope and, thus, opens the door to revisit the court’s earlier 
Rule 17(c) denial. He specifically renews his request that a Rule 17(c) subpoena issue to IBB 
requiring production of emails between Kathy Stapp and any representative of Blake & Uhlig 
about the whistleblower letter and Article 17 charge. Doc. 412 at 1. 
The court’s March 12, 2026, Order denied this 17(c) request, along with two others, 
explaining that it “stretch[ed] the boundaries of the defined waiver too far.” Doc. 239 at 9. The 
Order noted that this request “rope[d] in later events not included in the court’s waiver Order.” 

2 
 
Id. And it explained that “the whistleblower letter and resulting Article 17 charge occurred 
months after the September 2022 events, following a meeting held in February 2023 in Marco 
Island, Florida.” Id. Finally, the court concluded that “[c]ommunications about these later 
events don’t fall within the court’s earlier waiver ruling.” Id. 
Mr. Jones is right that the court’s oral ruling on May 22, 2026, extends the timeframe of 
the waiver to include the whistleblower letter and Article 17 charge. But temporality doesn’t end 
the inquiry. Our Circuit has explained that “voluntary disclosure by the client to a third party 
waives the privilege not only as to the specific communication disclosed, but often as to all other 
communications relating to the same subject matter.” Burke v. Regalado, 935 F.3d 960, 1023 
(10th Cir. 2019) (emphasis added) (quotation cleaned up). The court previously identified the 
scope of IBB’s waiver to include the following subject matter: “the salary, benefits, and other 
expenses that a union is permitted to pay its officers and employees under the law.” Doc. 177 at 
12. So, Mr. Jones must demonstrate that the whistleblower letter and Article 17 charge are 
communications relating to this same subject matter to establish privilege waiver. On that front, 
Mr. Jones’s renewed motion asserts simply that “the salary, benefits, and other expenses that a 
union is permitted to pay its officers and employees under the law . . . are precisely the issues 
addressed in both the whistleblower letter and Article 17 Charge[.]” Doc. 412 at 4. The court 
isn’t convinced by this ipse dixit argument. 
The September 2022 memo that triggered IBB’s waiver intended to instruct IBB on 
forward-looking policies. It thus purported to outline permissible expenditures “‘under the 
LMRDA and other applicable laws.’” Doc. 177 at 12 (quoting Doc. 107-1 at 1). And the memo 
sought to inform “recommendations to President Jones regarding . . . various expense reporting 
and reimbursement issues discussed on September 13, 2022.” Id. It didn’t opine on the three 

3 
 
specific, backward-looking issues involved with the Article 17 charge—(i) backpay to Kateryna 
Jones given her residence outside the United States, (ii) Mr. Jones’s meals with family members 
in his hometown, and (iii) Mr. Jones’s travel to Ukraine on union funds. Gov’t Ex. 51. 
Recall that the court is to construe the subject matter of a privilege waiver narrowly. 
Heartland Surgical Specialty Hosp., LLC v. Midwest Div., Inc., No. 05-2164-MLB-DWB, 2007 
WL 437791, at *2 (D. Kan. Feb. 6, 2007). And the interpretation of “same subject matter” varies 
from case to case. Edna Selan Epstein, Attorney-Client Privilege and the Work-Product 
Doctrine § 1.IV.X.2 (6th ed. 2025). “In some instances, everything involving a particular 
transaction or series of transactions may be put into issue and thereby become discoverable. In 
other cases, a far more circumscribed discovery is ordered.” Id. Here, the court concludes that 
the backward-looking, specific events involved in the whistleblower letter and Article 17 charge 
don’t fall within the scope of the September 2022 memo’s forward-looking policy 
recommendations. And so, the email communications that Mr. Jones seeks—those between Ms. 
Stapp and Blake & Uhlig attorneys about these specific events—remain privileged. 
A party seeking a subpoena under Rule 17(c) must establish that the subpoenaed material 
is “relevant, admissible, and specific.” United States v. Abdush-Shakur, 465 F.3d 458, 467 (10th 
Cir. 2006) (quotation cleaned up). “Failure of one of these elements” is dispositive. Id. And 
material protected by attorney-client privilege precludes a finding of admissibility. See United 
States v. Xu, No. 23-CR-133-5 (JMF), 2024 WL 4504352, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2024) 
(denying motion for 17(c) subpoena, in part, because it sought attorney-client privileged—and 
thus inadmissible—materials); see also United States v. Hoeffner, 254 F.R.D. 302, 306–07 (S.D. 
Tex. 2008) (quashing 17(c) subpoena where sought after material fell within un-waived attorney-
client privilege); United States v. Tomison, 969 F. Supp. 587, 598 (E.D. Cal. 1997) (same). 

4 
 
Because the requested communications between Ms. Stapp and counsel at Blake & Uhlig remain 
privileged, they fail the 17(c) test on the admissibility prong. And so, the court denies Mr. 
Jones’s request. 
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT defendant Newton Jones’s 
Renewed Motion for 17(c) Request and for Expedited Briefing (Doc. 412) is denied. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 Dated this 27th day of May, 2026, at Kansas City, Kansas. 
 
s/ Daniel D. Crabtree______ 
Daniel D. Crabtree 
United States District Judge 
 
 

Passage view · GavelSight