United States v. Ortega

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. STEVEN ORTEGA, et. Al., Defendants.

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Sep 29, 2015

2:12-cr-0198 MCE (E.D. Cal. Sep. 29, 2015)

Opinion

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. STEVEN ORTEGA, et. Al., Defendants. No. 2:12-cr-0198 MCE United States District Court, E.D. California. September 29, 2015

          ORDER

          CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.

         On September 25, 2015, pursuant to this Court's order, the government submitted documents for in camera review in connection with motion for discovery filed by a number of the defendants.

         The Court has reviewed the documents submitted and orders the following documents, or portions of documents as specified, to be provided in unredacted form:

1. DD-001518: paragraph 3.¹

1 The redacted information was already produced; see DD-000050.

2. DD-001611: block 9 and paragraph 1.²

2 The redacted information was already produced; see DD-002721.

         Further, the Court orders the government to file further briefing, by October 5, 2015, as to the following issues:

1. Wiretap affidavits (Request 1):

a. Does the government intend to call CS#2, CS# 3, CS#4, and/or CS#5 to testify at trial?

b. What is the status of the investigation referred to in paragraphs 55 and 56?

c. Does the government intend to introduce evidence regarding the location referenced in paragraphs 59 and 60 at trial?

d. Under what theory is the government redacting paragraphs 77, 78, and 80?

e. If a second protective order is granted, does the government intend to provide an unredacted copy of paragraphs 92, 96, 105, 106?

f. If a second protective order is granted, does the government intend to provide an unredacted copy of paragraph ii, DD-00246?

2. Reports of investigation and acquisition of evidence reports:

a. If a second protective order is granted, does the government intend to provide unredacted copies of the investigative reports relating to Request 7³?

3 The redaction of administrative information in the DEA 6 reports contained in blocks 1, 2, 3, and the indexing sections, is appropriate, and the Court does not include this information in its request for further briefing.

b. If a second protective order is granted, does the government intend to provide unredacted copies of the evidence reports relating to Request 8⁴?

4 The redaction of administrative information in the DEA 7 reports contained in blocks 2, 3, and 4 is appropriate, and the Court does not include this information in its request for further briefing.

c. If a second protective order is granted, does the government intend to provide unredacted copies of the investigative reports relating to Request 9?

d. If a second protective order is granted, does the government intend to provide unredacted copies of the investigative reports relating to Requests 10, 11, and 12?

3. Search warrants (Request 6):

a. Does the government intend to call CS#1 to testify at trial?

b. What is the justification for the redaction of DD-000858 at line 18?

c. What is the justification for the redaction of DD-000859 at line 5?

d. What is the justification for the redaction of DD-000860 at line 5?

e. What is the justification for the redaction of DD-000879 at lines 10 and 13?

f. What is the justification for the redaction of DD-000898 at lines 1 and 2⁵?

5 See DD-000839 at lines 23 and 3.

g. What is the justification for the redaction of DD-000900 at line 1⁶?

6 See DD-000839 at line 1.

h. What is the justification for the redaction of DD-000901 at line 3?

4. Raw Data (Request 15)

a. Does the government intend to introduce at trial any evidence, not already disclosed, contained in Request 15?

         IT IS SO ORDERED.