Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
***
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
PETER SANTILLI,
)
)
Defendant.
)
________________________________)
2:16-cr-00046-GMN-PAL
16
17
18
19
20
21
Protective Order.
22
23
24
25
26
protective order that have been issued in the District of Nevada. The current Protective
27
28
Order includes All materials produced by the government in discovery in this case....
1
2
3
In the most recent large case involving sensitive discovery, our District issued a more
narrow protective order. (See Attached Order from United States v. Benzer).
In the Benzer case, protected information was defined as:
4
5
6
Protected Documents which will be used by the government in its case in chief
include personal identifiers, including social security numbers, drivers license
numbers, dates of birth, bank account numbers, bank records, and addresses of
participants, witnesses, and victims in this case.
7
8
9
10
government officials within FBI 302's. Counsel in the Benzer case used professional
11
judgment when filing motions which attached 302's and accordingly redacted personal
12
identifiers as was outlined in that cases protective order. That case involved numerous
13
defendants and millions of pages of discovery. Counsel in that case used professional
14
15
16
judgment and no issues regarding the disclosure of personal identifiers came to fruition.
The Government in this case has alleged that law enforcement officers are in
17
some type of danger if their names become public record. Obviously, the personal
18
identifiers of these officers or other witness would be redacted before filing exhibits that
19
20
21
22
We request that this Court modify the definition of protected discovery to only
23
include documents, videos, audio, or other items that contain personal identifiers. If the
24
discovery items have personal identifiers, Counsel will redact that information prior to
25
filing these documents. Police reports or FBI reports (302's) can be easily redacted
26
prior to filing which has been done in every other case in this District without issue.
27
28
2.
1
2
3
There are numerous dispositive and in limine motions that are yet to be filed.
For example, the following discovery contains video/audio and photographs that do not
contain personal identifiers but will be the subject of upcoming motions:
4
5
profiles;
10
the name of the Trooper who were operating the vehicle that recorded the
11
events that will be subject to upcoming motions;
12
13
14
and/or other Park Ranger, Fish and Wildlife that depict the events leading
15
up to the April 9, 2016 protest of the removal of cattle, and what many
16
17
family;
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
FBI and Police reports are contained in the discover involving interviews of
26
witnesses and/or other law enforcement personnel that assisted with traffic control
27
during the events in Bunkerville, Nevada. These reports can easily be redacted to
28
1
2
3
remove personal identifiers such as social security numbers, dates of birth, personal
addresses, and personal telephone numbers.
Counsel should be allowed to make professional judgments and redact the
4
5
6
7
8
9
personal information of any person outlined in police or FBI reports like counsel in this
District have done in every case prior to this one.
The difficulty of keeping secret every piece of confidential documents is
burdensome which requires a narrowing of the prior protective Order to enable
Counsel for defendants to litigate evidentiary issues in an open court setting that is
10
outlined by the Supreme Court in Globe Newspaper Co. vs. Superior Court, 457 U.S.
11
12
13
14
15
16
We respectfully request that this Court narrow the protective Order as outlined
above.
DATED this 30th day of September, 2016.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28