A federal grand jury was investigating "John Doe," president and sole shareholder of "XYZ" corporation, concerning possible violations of federal securities and money-laundering statutes. During the investigation, the government learned that XYZ had paid the bills for various telephone lines, including those used in Doe's homes and car. Grand jury subpoenas calling for the production of documents were then served on the custodian of XYZ's corporate records, on Doe, and on the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison (Paul-Weiss), which represented Doe. These subpoenas sought production of telephone bills, records, and statements of account regarding certain telephone numbers, including those used by Doe. The district court determined after an evidentiary hearing that the documents sought were XYZ's, and not Doe's. Paul-Weiss which had received copies of these documents from its client, refused to produce them, arguing that it was exempted from doing so by Doe's privilege against self-incrimination. Was Paul-Weiss correct in its assertion?