2identified. For reasons set forth in the Ex Parte Letter, andthat their names should be redacted from any public filing ofpage 8 of the May 1 Letter. See United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d141, 147 (2d Cir. 1995) (need to protect the integrity of anongoing investigation, including the safety of witnesses and lawenforcement personnel, and to prevent interference, flight andother obstruction, may be compelling reason justifying sealing).Huntley’s recordings of three of these eightindividuals yielded evidence useful to law enforcementauthorities, and the details of these recordings are provided tothe Court in a third letter filed by the government today, whichwas filed under seal and copied to Huntley’s counsel (the “SealedLetter”). Huntley’s recordings of one other individual, who isnot one of the eight that are the subjects of ongoinginvestigations, also yielded evidence useful to law enforcementauthorities, and the details of those conversations are alsoprovided to the Court in the Sealed Letter. Any ongoinginvestigation of this last individual would not be affected bythat individual being publicly named, but for reasons set forthin the Sealed Letter, the government’s submits that thisindividual’s name should also remain sealed at this time.III. The Individual Who Is Not Under InvestigationThe other individual whose conversations with thedefendant were recorded (the “Other Individual”) is not a subjectof any criminal investigation of which this office is aware.Indeed, the government currently has no basis to believe that theOther Individual has engaged in any criminal wrongdoing. Whilethe disclosure of the identity of the Other Individual would not,therefore, undermine any ongoing investigation, the governmentnonetheless respectfully submits that the name of the OtherIndividual should not be publicly disclosed. In this regard, thegovernment submits that the privacy interests of the OtherIndividual, as an innocent third party, outweighs the presumptiveright of the public to access an unredacted version of the May 1Letter that includes the Other Individual’s name.
The government notes that at the May 6, 2013 hearing,
members of the press proposed that a relevant consideration forthe Court in this matter should be whether there have beenpublished reports about investigations into any of the listedindividuals. The government disagrees with that proposition,because reports published in the press, without confirmation byany investigating agency, generally do not have the same effecton the behavior of a target of an investigation. The standard
Case 1:13-cr-00054-JBW Document 20 Filed 05/07/13 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 175