United States of America v. Igor Danchenko
Notes: The Court has carefully considered the Government's Supplemental Ex Parte, In Camera Under Seal Motion and Memorandum of Law for a Protective Order, and the materials filed therewith.
US v. Danchenko 70 by FightWithKash on Scribd
Summary
The Court finds that the Government's Supplemental Motion for a Protective Order wasproperly filed ex parte, in camera, for this Court's review, pursuant to Section Four of the Classified Information Procedures Act, 18 U.S.C. App. 3 ("CIPA"), and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(l). The Court has conducted an ex parte, in camera review of the Government's classified Motion and the attached materials.
The Court finds that the "'relevant and helpful" standard articulated in United States v. Roviaro, 353 U.S. 53 (1957), and United States v. Yunis, 867 F.2d 617 (D.C. Cir. 1989), is the appropriate standard by which to analyze whether the government must disclose in discovery classified information where, as here, the government has properly invoked the classified information privilege. To this end, the Court finds that in applying the Roviaro/Yunis standard, none of the classified information referenced in the Government's motion is relevant and helpful to the defense, or that to the extent any of the classified information is relevant and helpful, the proposed summaries or substitutions properly provide that information to the defense without compromising non-discoverable sensitive sources and methods. See, e.g., In re Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in£. Afr. C'ln re Terrorist Bombings"), 552 F.3d 93, 124-25 (2d Cir. 2008) (approving substitution of government stipulations for otherwise helpful classified information); United States v. Dumeisi, 424 F.3d 566, 578 (7th Cir. 2005) {upholding lower court finding that summary would provide defendant "substantially the same ability to make his defense as would disclosure of the specified classified information[.]"); United States v. Rezaq, 134 F.3d 1121, 1143 (D.C. Cir. 1998). The Court also finds that the withholdings authorized by this Order are consistent with the Government's discovery obligations under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16, and Brady v. Maryland, Giglio v. United States, and their progeny.
