United States v. Adams

United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Timothy John Adams, Defendant.

Case No. 18-cr-244 (NEB/TNL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

March 8, 2019

ORDER

Bradley M. Endicott & Andrew R. Winter, Assistant United States Attorneys, United States Attorney's Office, 300 South Fourth Street, Suite 600, Minneapolis MN 55415 (for the Government).

On February 27, 2019, the Government filed an ex parte Motion of the United States for a Protective Order (ECF No. 34). On March 1, 2019, the Court ordered that the Government file a supplemental memorandum addressing several questions the Court had regarding the scope and nature of the proposed protective order. (ECF No. 35). The Government filed its supplemental memorandum on March 7, 2019. (ECF No. 37).

The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure permit this Court, upon a showing of good cause, to issue a protective order restricting or denying discovery or inspection in any manner. Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(d)(1). Good cause may be shown by a written statement that is inspected ex parte by the Court. Id. "The burden of showing good cause is on the party seeking the order." United States v. Cordova, 806 F.3d 1085, 1090 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court may consider any number of factors in determining whether good cause exists, including the safety of witnesses and the "danger of perjury or witness intimidation[.]" Id. "[O]nce a showing of good cause has been made, the court has relatively unconstrained discretion to fashion an appropriate protective order." United States v. Johnson, 314 F. Supp. 3d 248, 251 (D.D.C. 2018). This includes the authority to "place a defendant and his counsel under enforceable orders against unwarranted disclosure of the materials which they may be entitled to inspect." Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 185 (1969). The Court may not, however, issue a protective order that would prejudice a defendant's substantial rights. United States v. Pelton, 578 F.2d 701, 707 (8th Cir. 1978).

The Court has reviewed the Government's ex parte motion and supplemental memorandum. The facts and assertions contained in both documents show not only good cause as required, but also compelling cause for a protective order. Furthermore, given the sensitive nature of the information contained in each document, the Government has also demonstrated good cause for seeking the protective order ex parte. The Court will therefore grant the Government's motion.

In reaching this decision, the Court has carefully considered the impact that the protective order would have on Adams's ability to defend himself in this matter. For multiple reasons, the protective order will not inhibit Adams's substantial rights. First, there is no general constitutional right to discovery in a criminal case. Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 559 (1977). Second, the protective order allows defense counsel full access to the discovery materials and allows counsel to review those materials with Adams. Third, the protective order does not restrict the use of those materials at trial or any otherproceeding. The Court therefore concludes the restrictions proposed by the Government are reasonable in light of the good cause shown.

Based on...