See, e.g., United States v. Rose, No. CR 11–10062 NMG, 2012 WL 1744757, at *2 (D.Mass. May 6, 2012) (Boal, M.J.); United States v. Hurtado, 2007 WL 3171417, at *6 (E.D.Wis. Oct. 26, 2007) ; United States v. Wright, 121 F.Supp.2d at 1350 ; United States v. Birdman, No. 92–00133–07, 1992 WL 203318, at *1 (E.D.Pa. Aug. 14, 1992) (Waldman, J.). In United States v. Orozco, 108 F.R.D. 313 (S.D.Cal.1985), for example, the Honorable J. Lawrence Irving, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, denied the defendant's discovery request for Title III progress reports, explaining:[D]isclosure of progress reports is not necessary in order to determine whether the government complied with the statutory requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq.

Periodic reports assist a wiretap-authorizing court in determining what progress has been made in a criminal investigation and the need for continued interception. U.S. v. Orozco, 108 F.R.D. 313, 315 (S.D. Cal. 1986). Such reports contain the prosecutors' summaries of telephone conversations, theories of the case, and additional investigative leads. The Court held a hearing on this matter on August 6, 2010.

Similarly, it is unlikely that progress reports would uncover material falsity contained in the initial application which would not be evidenced by the application itself or by agents' testimony.108 F.R.D. 313, 316 (S.D. Cal. 1985); see United States v. Birdman, Criminal No. 92-00133-07, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12155, at *2-*3 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 14, 1992). Because these reports are merely summaries, and provide no original information, courts routinely deny requests for such reports when they are sought to challenge the underlying applications and orders.

"Courts generally recognize that a defendant's challenge to minimization does not depend on these reports." United States v. Wright, 121 F. Supp. 2d 1344, 1350 (D. Kan. 2000) As the court explained in United States v. Orozco, 108 F.R.D. 313 (S.D. Cal. 1985): disclosure of progress reports is not necessary in order to determine whether the government complied with the statutory requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 2510, et seq.

United States v. Tanner, No. 10-cr-432, 2013 WL 1891360, at *2 (N.D. Ohio May 6, 2013) (same); United States v. Rose, No. 11-cr-10062 (NMG), 2012 WL 1744757, at *3 (D. Mass. May 16, 2012) (same); United States v. McCafferty, 772 F.Supp.2d 863, 878-79 (N.D. Ohio 2011); United States v. Koschtschuk, No. 09-cr-96 (S)(M), 2010 WL 584018, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 16, 2010) (same); United States v. Chimera, 201 F.R.D. 72, 78 (W.D.N.Y. 2001) (same); United States v. Wright, 121 F.Supp.2d 1344, 1350 (D. Kan. 2000) (same); United States v. Orozco, 108 F.R.D. 313, 317 (S.D. Cal. 1985) (same).

Those items . . . are the original and best sources of information regarding statutory compliance." Rose, 2012 WL 1744757, at *3 (quoting United States v. Orozco, 108 F.R.D. 313, 316 (S.D. Cal. 1985)) (quotation marks omitted). Thus, Gordon was provided the information needed to evaluate and challenge the wiretaps, and he has not established that the progress reports are material to preparing his defense.

Other courts, however, have rejected defendants' requests to view interim reports. See, e.g., United States v. Arnett, No. 04-CR-285, 2005 WL 6111778, at *5-8 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 13, 2005) (noting that, "to determine compliance with the [wiretap] order, all that the defense must have is the order and the results, i.e. the tapes and/or transcripts," and "the defendants' suggestion that such progress reports might contain exculpatory information is too speculative to warrant their disclosure"); United States v. Chimera, 201 F.R.D. 72, 76-78 (W.D.N.Y. 2001) (noting the burden of an in camera review when there was "no reasonable probability" of finding relevant information); United States v. Orozco, 108 F.R.D. 313, 315-17 (S.D. Cal. 1985) (denying request to disclose reports, in part because "such reports are, for the most part, summaries of interceptions and do not provide any statements or exculpatory information not also required to be disclosed in its original form"); United States v. Marchman, 399 F. Supp. 585, 586 (E.D. Tenn. 1975) ("[I]t appears that access to these reports is unnecessary since defendant has been given access to the Application and Order and has had the opportunity to listen to all of the tapes of the intercepted communications. The so-called progress reports are not required by law and the matter is left to the discretion of the issuing judge.")

Any lack of probable cause for the issuance of the orders or a failure to otherwise comply with § 2518(1)(c) must be present itself on the face of the application. See United States v. Wagner, 989 F.2d 69, 74 (2d Cir.1993) (assessing existence of probable cause for wiretaps on basis of informant's investigative activities as described in affidavit of support of Title III application and not results of subsequent suppression hearing); United States v. Orozco, 108 F.R.D. 313, 316 (S.D.Cal.1985) (validity of wire tap applications must "be based on the knowledge of the government agents as of the date the application was sought"). As Defendants have received these documents, the progress reports will be irrelevant, and thus immaterial, to the court's consideration

SeeUnited States v. Abdul-Ahad, 2009 WL 35473, *2 (D.Minn. 2009) ("Courts generally deny requests to discover monitoring agent's rough notes, written summaries and interim progress reports."). As explained inUnited States v. Orozco, 108 F.R.D. 313, 316 (D.C.Cal. 1985): "disclosure of progress reports is not necessary in order to determine whether the government complied with the statutory requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 2510, et seq.

Courts generally deny requests to discover monitoring agent's rough notes, written summaries and interim progress reports. See Hance v. United States, 299 F.2d 389, 394 (8th Cir. 1962) (defendant not entitled to inspect agent's notes when they were contextually covered in documents ordered to be given to defense counsel); see also United States v. Wright, 121 F. Supp. 2d 1344, 1350 (D. Kan. 2000); United States v. Orozco, 108 F.R.D. 313, 315-16 (S.D. Cal. 1985); United States v. Marchman, 399 F. Supp. 585, 596 (E.D. Tenn. 1975); United States v. Brodson, 390 F. Supp. 774, 777-78 (E.D. Wis. 1975). Defendant neither identifies a reason why the court should depart from this generally accepted view nor demonstrates why in camera review of the written summaries is necessary.