Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Resp by Friesen to Atf

Resp by Friesen to Atf

Ratings: (0)|Views: 127 |Likes:
Published by NoloContendere
Friesen v. Erb
Friesen v. Erb

More info:

Published by: NoloContendere on Mar 05, 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

03/05/2012

pdf

text

original

 
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THEWESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMAUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ))Plaintiff. )) CASE NO. CR-08-041-L))LARRY DOUGLAS FRIESEN, ))Defendant. )DEFENDANT LARRY
DOUGLAS FRIESEN’S REPLY TO ATF’SOPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO LIFT OR OTHERWISEMODIFY THE COURT’S DISCOVERY PROTECTIVE ORDER 
 
COMES NOW Defendant Larry Douglas Friesen
(“Friesen”)
, by andthrough attorney Jacob L. Rowe
(“Rowe”)
and presents his
 Reply
to
 ATF’sOpposition to Defendant’s Motion to Lift or Otherwise Modify The Court’s
 Discovery Protective Order 
(“Objection”)
.PERTINENT FACTUAL INFORMATION1. On January 27, 2012 this Court entered an Order requiring the appearance of all counsel of record in this matter and those in CIV-10-140-C
(“the civilcase”)
to inquire as to the potential disclosure of certain materials providedby the United States
Attorney’s Office (“USAO”) to Defendant.
 2. On February 1, 2012 Rowe filed on F
riesen’s
behalf his
 Motion and Supporting Brief Requesting order to Lift or Otherwise Modify DiscoveryProtective Order For Limited Purpose
(“Defendant’s Motion”)
.
Case 5:08-cr-00041-L Document 173 Filed 03/02/12 Page 1 of 14
 
2
3. On February 2, 2012 those required appeared before this Court whereinquiry was made as to the extent and nature of said disclosure. Noargument was heard on
 Defendant’s Motion
as the USAO represented that itwas without authority to make argument regarding discovery materialswhich were the property of the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,Firearms, and Expl
osives (“BATFE”).
 4. On that date, the Court encouraged Rowe to attempt to negotiate with theUSAO and BATFE in an attempt to rectify the issues set forth in
 Defendant’s Motion.
 5. On February 14, 2012 Rowe presented to the USAO a letter requestingcertain information surrendered by Friesen and Rowe be provided foruse in CIV-10-140-C.
See Letter dated February 14, 2012
, attached asExhibit 1.6. Said request sought certain information be disclosed and that any and alltaxpayer information included therein be redacted, excepting theinformation of the parties in the civil case.7. On February 22, 2012 USAO Mark Yancey communicated to theundersigned via telephone that the USAO had forwarded Exhibit 1 to
Case 5:08-cr-00041-L Document 173 Filed 03/02/12 Page 2 of 14
 
3
BATFE attorney James Vann and that the USAO no longer considered itself involved in the matter of the disclosure discovery materials in this matter.
1
 8. To date, Rowe has not received any communication from BATFEregarding its request for redacted versions of those documents surrendered tothe USAO.9. On February 15, 2012 the undersigned received from attorney Joe Wells
(“Wells”)
, attorney for Charles Erb, Jr.
(“Erb”) in the civil case,
certainmaterials upon which Delbert Knopp, an expert witness listed by Wells inthe civil case, had relied upon to formulate the expert opinions he intends tooffer in trial in that matter.10. Rowe noticed that these materials: (1) had been marked with Bates Stampnumbers; (2) appeared to have been gathered from discovery materialsfrom this case; and (3) contained confidential taxpayer information of Friesen, Erb, and other individuals unrelated to this action or the civilcase.11. Rowe surrendered these documents to the USAO as the
Protective Order  Regarding Discovery
(Dkt. 48)
(“Protective Order”)
indicates that,
regardless of their source, any “materials provided by the United States
[during discovery] may be utilized by the defendant solely in connection
1
 
Counsel’s representation of said conversation with Mark Yancey is a paraphrasing of those representations made
by Mr. Yancey and is not meant to be a direct quotation, rather a summation of said conversation.
Case 5:08-cr-00041-L Document 173 Filed 03/02/12 Page 3 of 14

You're Reading a Free Preview

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