Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Bc Oppo to Reconsideration

Bc Oppo to Reconsideration

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,539|Likes:
Published by chrisabray

More info:

Published by: chrisabray on Jan 31, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/31/2012

pdf

text

original

 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTSIN RE: Request from the United KingdomPursuant to the Treaty Between the Government of the United States of America and the Governmentof the United Kingdom on Mutual Assistance inCriminal Matters in the Matter of Dolours PriceM.B.D. No. 11-MC-91078
RESPONSEOFTRUSTEESOFBOSTONCOLLEGETOGOVERNMENT’SMOTIONFORPARTIALRECONSIDERATION
Trustees of Boston College and two of its representatives, Robert K. O’Neill, theLibrarian of the John J. Burns Library at Boston College, and Boston College UniversityProfessor Thomas E. Hachey (collectively “Boston College”) submit this Response to theGovernment’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration (D. 48) of this Court’s Findings and Orderdated January 20, 2012 (D. 47) (“Order”).The Government’s Motion first asks the Court to review or require Boston College toreview what it refers to as “the ‘very few’ untranscribed recordings” that the Court in its Order(at 3) said it declined to review “in view of the paucity of information unearthed after extensivereview by this Court.”
*
In fact, there are no untranscribed recordings of the interviews with intervieweesformerly associated with the IRA. The transmittal letter from undersigned counsel on behalf of 
*
The Government’s Motion asserts (at 2) that Boston College “failed” its obligation to review the interviewmaterials for information responsive to the subpoenas. There is no basis for that charge. In its Motions to Quashboth the first and second subpoenas, Boston College asked either that it be informed of the contents of the sealedmaterials submitted to the Court so Boston College could review the interviews with knowledge of the purposes of the investigation, or that the Court itself review the interviews with heightened scrutiny because they wereconfidential academic research materials. The Court accepted the need for heightened scrutiny and decided toconduct the review itself 
in camera
. Boston College in no way failed to carry out its obligations in response to thesubpoenas.
Case 1:11-mc-91078-WGY Document 52 Filed 01/26/12 Page 1 of 3
 
- 2 -Boston College to Matthew Paine, Docket Clerk, dated December 27, 2011, noted that thereappeared to be no transcript of the audio recordings of one interview of each of two interviewees.That letter also noted that there were three transcripts labeled as interview “1” of oneinterviewee, which suggested that two of the transcripts might simply have been mislabeled.Because Boston College was closed for Christmas week, the letter said that Boston Collegewould review the matter once the university reopened. By letter dated January 11, 2012,undersigned counsel reported on behalf of Boston College that two of the three transcriptslabeled “1” were mislabeled and in fact were the transcripts for the other two audio recordings.As a result, there were transcripts of all of the audio recordings of the interviews, and no“untranscribed recordings.”The second request in the Government’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration is that theCourt order the delivery, in their entirety, of interview materials from three individuals identifiedin a sealed
ex parte
submission made with the Government’s Motion if those individuals’interviews are not among the materials that the Court’s Order requires be released to theGovernment. The Government’s Motion asserts (at 3), without explanation, that interviews withthese three individuals “
are
responsive to the subpoenas in this case and
are
likely to havesubstantial investigatory value . . . [italics added].” Without access to either the sealedinformation originally submitted
ex parte
by the Government to support the issuance of thesubpoenas, or the names of the three individuals identified in the sealed information submitted
ex parte
by the Government with its Motion for Partial Reconsideration, Boston College obviouslyhas limited ability to respond to this aspect of the Government’s Motion for PartialReconsideration. But the purpose of the Court’s
in camera
review was for the Court todetermine what information ought to be produced in response to the subpoenas, through its
Case 1:11-mc-91078-WGY Document 52 Filed 01/26/12 Page 2 of 3

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->