Buy This Entire Record For
United States v. Delgado
United States District Court, D. Nebraska
September 10, 2018
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
JUAN PABLO SANCHEZ DELGADO, a/k/a “Pablo, ” ANTONIO DE JESUS CASTRO, a/k/a “Tony” MAGDALENA CASTRO BENITEZ, a/k/a “Nena, ” ALMA HERNANDEZ MORENO, a/k/a “Aunt” ANAYANCY CASTRO HERNANDEZ, a/k/a “Anay, ” FABIAN CASTRO, a/k/a “Fabi, ” SUNI SARAHI SANCHEZ DELGADO OSVALDO SANCHEZ DELGADO, a/k/a “Lalo, ” a/k/a “Lalito, ” JOHN CHRISTOPHER GOOD, ARACELY HEREDIA MARTINEZ, a/k/a “Donita, ” ERIC BERINGER, CHRISTOPHER THURLOW, MAYRA P. JIMENEZ, ASIYADETH JIMENEZ CASTELLON, JOHN GLIDDEN, JAIME GARCIA COTA, a/k/a “David, ” LILLIAN AJIN, JP AND SONS, LLC, J GREEN VALLEY, LLC, and CASTRO PROPERTIES, LLC, Defendants.
R. ZWART U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
before the Court is the government's Motion for a
Protective Order Governing Disclosure of Discovery Materials.
(Filing No. 233). Defendants Beringer, Good, Thurlow, and
Glidden (“Objecting Defendants”) object to the
government's proposed protective order, (Filing Nos. 235
& 236), arguing:
The Government's Motion is premature. Defendants have no
information about what Plaintiff will disclose. With no idea
about type, sources, volume or general nature of the
information to be disclosed, the Defendants cannot respond
effectively to the Motion, nor can they make fully formed
objections to the Motion.
(Filing No. 235). The Objecting Defendants also argue the
government's proposed protective order will unduly limit
their ability to prepare a defense by impeding their full and
fair review of the government's evidence, their
communications with counsel, witnesses, and co-defendants;
and their use of language translators, expert witnesses,
investigators, or other assistance essential to preparing a
defense. (Filing No. 235, at CM/ECF pp. 2-4). The Objecting
Defendants argue the government has failed to show good cause
for the entry of any protective order in this case.
government states good cause exists for entry of a protective
In order to protect the rights of third parties whose
personal identifiers are included within these materials, and
to protect witnesses, potential cooperators, and
co-conspirators from harm or improper influence, as well as
to preserve the integrity of each witnesses' testimony,
and to protect ongoing criminal investigations, the
government requests that this court enter an order of
protection regarding the dissemination of the discovery and
Jencks material in this case. Additionally, as this
case has received media attention, a protective order would
prevent disclosure of evidence and witness identities and
statements to the press, which could endanger witnesses,
potentially obstruct justice if testimony were compromised or
lost, and potentially result in the tainting of the jury
(Filing No. 233, at CM/ECF p. 2).
dealt with this case from the outset, the undersigned
magistrate judge is aware of the numerous search warrants
served and the extent of information requested in those
warrants. Through the course of hearings and warrant
applications, I know the government possesses extensive
wiretap information regarding the alleged conspiracy, and it
received information from cooperating witnesses who fear
their names will become public. And, as a result of the
warrants executed on or near the day Defendants were
arrested, the government likely possesses extensive
documentary evidence with personal identifiers. Redacting
personal identifiers from the evidence is an option, but not
a quick one. Meanwhile, defendants and witnesses remain
detained awaiting the outcome of this case, possibly to
include material witnesses in immigration custody who may
possess inculpatory or exculpatory information.
the circumstances presented, the court believes the best
course of action is to enter a protective order so the
government can promptly serve discovery on Defendants'
counsel. But this order will be entered without prejudice to
any defendant filing a motion permitting disclosure beyond
the confines of the protective order should the order and its
limitations appear unnecessary or unconstitutional as applied
(in whole, in part, or as to certain defendants) after
reviewing the government's discovery.
IT IS ORDERED:
government's motion to restrict access, (Filing No. 232),
Defendants' objections, (Filing Nos. 235 & 236), are
overruled but without prejudice to requesting a modification
of the protective order after defense counsel has been
afforded the opportunity to review the government's
government's motion for protective order, (Filing No.
233), is granted, in part, as follows:
discovery materials (or copies thereof) provided by the
government to the defense (regardless of ...