In United States v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605 [1984] a federal grand jury issued subpoenas to the owner of several sole proprietorships. The district court quashed the subpoenas except with respect to those documents and records required by law to be kept or disclosed to a public agency, finding that the act of producing the records would involve testimonial self-incrimination. The Third Circuit affirmed, holding that the records for which the district court quashed the subpoena were privileged, and that the act of producing them also would have "communicative aspects of its own." The Supreme Court held that where the preparation of business records is voluntary, no compulsion is present; that a subpoena for documents does not compel oral testimony and would not ordinarily compel the owner to restate, repeat or affirm the truth of the contents of the documents; and the fact that the papers on their face might incriminate the owner does not make them privileged against disclosure, because the privilege protects only against compelled testimonial communications. In Doe, the owner of the records did not contend that he prepared the documents involuntarily, and the court noted that the fact that the documents were in his possession is irrelevant to the determination of whether the creation of the records was compelled. The court therefore held that the contents of the records were not privileged. However, the Supreme Court in Doe was bound by the lower court's finding (affirmed by the Circuit court) that the act of producing the records would involve testimonial self-incrimination. Noting that the government could have compelled defendant to produce the documents in response to the subpoena, but at the cost of granting use immunity to the defendant, the court holds that it will not make a finding of constructive use immunity. Since the government did not apply to the district court to grant defendant immunity, it cannot overcome a claim of privilege under the act of production doctrine.