DOJ-OGR-00019559.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 32 Filed 08/02/20 Page 2 of 5

reference, but not file, other discovery material that the Government produced in this case. For
the reasons that follow, Defendant’s requests are DENIED.

Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1), a Court may enter a protective order
only after it finds that good cause exists. Within this framework, the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure leave it to the discretion of the Court to determine whether modification of an existing
protective order is warranted.² To make that decision, the Court takes into account all relevant
factors, including the parties’ reliance on the protective order and whether the moving party has
sufficiently substantiated a request to deviate from the status quo in the instant matter.

On July 30, 2020, this Court entered a protective order in this case, having determined
that good cause existed. Dkt. No. 36. The parties agreed that a protective order was warranted.
See Dkt. No. 35 at 1 (“The parties have met and conferred, resolving nearly all the issues relating
to the proposed protective order.”). The Defendant’s Proposed Protective Order included a
provision that stated that all discovery produced by the Government “[s]hall be used by the
Defendant or her Defense Counsel solely for purposes of the defense of this criminal action, and
not for any civil proceeding or any purpose other than the defense of this action.” Dkt. No. 29,
Ex. A ¶ 1(a). That language was included in the Court’s July 30, 2020 protective order. See Dkt.
No. 36 ¶¶ 1(a), 10(a), 14(a). Shortly thereafter, the Government began to produce discovery.

Upon receipt of some of the discovery, the Defendant filed the instant request, which
seeks modification of the protective order in order to use documents produced in the criminal

__________
² In the civil context, there is a “strong presumption against the modification of a protective order.” In re Teligent,
Inc., 640 F.3d 53, 59 (2d Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). Courts in the Second Circuit have applied the standard for
modification of protective orders in the civil context to the criminal context. See, e.g., United States v. Calderon,
No. 3:15-CR-25 (JCH), 2017 WL 6453344, at *2 (D. Conn. Dec. 1, 2017) (applying the civil standard for the
modification of a protective order in a criminal case); United States v. Kerik, No. 07-CR-1027 (LAP), 2014 WL
12710346 at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2014) (same). See also United States v. Morales, 807 F.3d 717, 723 (5th Cir.
2015) (applying the standard for “good cause” in the civil context when evaluating whether to modify a protective
order entered in a criminal case); United States v. Wecht, 484 F.3d 194, 211 (3rd Cir. 2007) (same).

2
App.100
DOJ-OGR-00019559