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

Arredondo Records Secrecy Order

Ratings: (0)|Views: 28|Likes:
Published by ray stern

More info:

Published by: ray stern on Jun 01, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


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





LANNY A. BREUER Assistant Attorney GeneralAttorney for the United StatesActing Under Authority of 28 U.S.C. § 515JACK SMITHChief, Public Integrity SectionMONIQUE T. ABRISHAMITrial AttorneyFlorida State Bar Member Public Integrity SectionCriminal DivisionU.S. Department of Justice1400 New York Avenue, NW, 12 Floor 
Washington, D.C. 20005Telephone (202) 514-1412Monique.Abrishami@usdoj.govFREDERICK A. BATTISTAAssistant U.S. AttorneyMaryland State Bar Member Two Renaissance Square40 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1200Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4408Telephone (602) 514-7500Fred.Battista@usdoj.gov
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF ARIZONAUnited States of America,Plaintiff,v.Paul Ben Arredondo,Defendant.CR-12-1055-001-PHX-FJM
The United States, with the consent of defendant P. Ben Arredondo, moves this Court, pursuantto Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1), to enter into force the attached protective order governing discovery in this matter.
Case 2:12-cr-01055-FJM Document 16 Filed 05/31/12 Page 1 of 8
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728As noted in its Amended Consent Motion for a Protective Order (Doc. 10), the Government intendsto produce or otherwise make available to the defense a large amount of material, much of whichcontains confidential and sensitive information related to other investigations (both closed and ongoing).If this information were to be publicly disclosed, such disclosure might impede those investigationswhich are ongoing and/or impair the privacy rights of third parties whose conduct is or was at one timeunder investigation. Moreover, some of this material contains sensitive information regarding witnesses,such as personal identifiers, addresses, and phone numbers.Magistrate Judge Lawrence Anderson denied the Government’s motion on May 30, 2012, citingconcerns with the breadth of the requested relief. In light of those concerns, the Government hasamended its proposed Protective Order to limit its application to Confidential Material as that term isdefined in the Order, and to exclude material that is otherwise publicly available. In its revised form,the Order would protect four classes of materials: (1) materials relating to the investigation of third persons and/or entities (both open and closed); (2) materials relating to individuals who have agreed tocooperate with the Government in the investigation of other persons or entities; (3) materials relatingto individuals who provided background information to law enforcement regarding the investigation of other persons or entities and requested that their identities not be disclosed; (4) all financial records, taxrecords, and personal identifier information (including addresses, birthdates, and social securitynumbers) of all third parties. The materials in these four categories, representing the fruits of a large-scale investigation, is only tangentially related, if related at all, to the charges against defendantARREDONDO. The Government wishes to disclose this information out of an abundance of caution.However, to protect the third parties who are not involved in defendant ARREDONDO’s case, and the parties who provided information regarding persons other than defendant ARREDONDO, theGovernment respectfully requests that a protective order be entered as to the Confidential Material provided in this matter.As the Supreme Court has noted, “much of the information that surfaces during pretrial discoverymay be unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action. Therefore, restraints placed on discovered, but not yet admitted, information are not a restriction on a traditionally publicsource of information.”
Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart 
, 467 U.S. 20, 33 (1984). Rule 16(d) permits the2
Case 2:12-cr-01055-FJM Document 16 Filed 05/31/12 Page 2 of 8
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728Court to “for good cause, deny, restrict, or defer discovery or inspection, or grant other appropriaterelief,” including a protective order. F
P. 16(d). The Government does not seek to sealotherwise public court records, but rather to protect otherwise non-public information produced to thedefense in discovery. Protecting this information requires “good cause.”
See San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. District Court 
, 187 F.3d 1095, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999) (applying the “good cause” standard toevaluate a civil protective order under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure);
c.f. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th2006) (“[W]hen a district courtgrants a protective order to seal documents during discovery, ‘it already has determined that ‘good cause’exists to protect this information from being disclosed to the public by balancing the needs for discoveryagainst the need for confidentiality.’ [
 Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp.
, 307 F.3d1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002)]).In this case, the Government seeks to protect material that will likely have little to no impact ondefendant ARREDONDO’s defense, consisting of information regarding closed and ongoinginvestigations of other parties, as well as financial records and personal identifier information of other  parties. As to the latter category, the release of this information could result in identity theft or harassment. In fact, the District of Arizona has already recognized the importance of concealing personal identifier information in court documents. District of Arizona General Order 08-11. This protective order would prevent that same sort of private information from being disseminated beyondthose persons necessary to defendant ARREDONDO’s defense, thereby limiting – if not eliminating – the risks associated with its public release.
 Mehl v. Blanas
, 241 F.R.D. 653, 659-60 (N.D. Cal. 2007)(imposing a protective order for personal identifier information in part to protect persons from the possibility of identity theft).As to the former category – information regarding ongoing and closed investigations of other  parties, including information regarding sources for those investigations the dissemination of thatmaterial beyond a limited set of persons could impede criminal investigations, compromise witnesssafety, and deter potential witnesses from providing information to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
See, e.g.
United States v. Smith
, 776 F.2d 1104, 1114 (3d Cir. 1985) (recognizing that releasing the3
Case 2:12-cr-01055-FJM Document 16 Filed 05/31/12 Page 3 of 8

You're Reading a Free Preview

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