Published

PUBLISHED
UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CI RCUI T

No. 13-4625

I n Re: UNDER SEAL

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Pl ai nt i f f Appel l ee,

v.

LAVABI T, LLC. ; LADAR LEVI SON,

Par t i es- i n- I nt er est Appel l ant s.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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.

No. 13-4626

I n Re: GRAND J URY PROCEEDI NGS

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Pl ai nt i f f Appel l ee,

v.

Appeal: 13-4626 Doc: 65 Filed: 04/16/2014 Pg: 1 of 41
2

LAVABI T, LLC. ; LADAR LEVI SON,

Par t i es- i n- I nt er est Appel l ant s.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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
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.

4

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.
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
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
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.
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.
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 .
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.
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.
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.
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. )

14

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.
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
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.
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
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) .
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.
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,
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)
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) .
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
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
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 . ) .
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
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 .
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. ) .
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
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) .
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
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)
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.
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
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.
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) .
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
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 .

39

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
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
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.

Published

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Published

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

PUBLISHED

UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

S-ar putea să vă placă și