In response to a subpoena served in the course of an ongoing grand jury investigation, the recipient of the subpoena conferred with counsel regarding her preservation obligations. The district court compelled production of the notes taken by the attorney, under the crime-fraud exception, and the U.S. Third Circuit affirmed. “At the time of Jane Doe’s January 20, 2005 conversation with Attorney, Jane Doe was committing the crime of obstruction of justice. The Court’s finding that the Government met its burden of presenting evidence demonstrating a reasonable basis to suspect the perpetration of a crime, if based on adequate evidence, satisfies the first prong of the crime-fraud exception.” As to the second prong, “there are no opinions of which we are aware that apply the crime-fraud exception in precisely these circumstances. However, we see no reason why it does not apply. …in the course of the communication between Jane Doe and Attorney, Attorney advised Jane Doe of the contents of the most recent subpoena and of the Government’s interest in retrieving from Organization’s computers emails to or from certain persons, including Jane Doe, who were or are connected with the Organization…. There is no suggestion that Attorney did anything improper in transmitting this communication to Jane Doe…. Nor is there any suggestion that Attorney was aware of either past wrongdoing or potential future wrongdoing.” However: “If Jane Doe learned of the Government’s interest in certain documents from her conversation with Attorney on January 20, 2005 and subsequently acquiesced in the deletion or destruction of those documents, the second prong of the crime-fraud exception would be satisfied.” See In re Grand Jury Investigation, 445 F.3d 266 (3d Cir. 2006).