Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Court filings USA v. McCabe United States v. Dustin Sean McCabe — S.D. Fla., No. 9:24-cr-80103-AMC Unopposed Motion for Protective Order by USA — USA v. McCabe (Dkt. 17, S.D. Fla.)

Court filing

Unopposed Motion for Protective Order by USA — USA v. McCabe (Dkt. 17, S.D. Fla.)

Filed October 1, 2024 in USA v. McCabe; one of 219 filings from this case.

Record facts

CourtU.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
Filed2024-10-01

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida · No. 9:24-cr-80103-AMC · Doc. 17 · 2024-10-01 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
 
CASE NO. 24-CR-80103-CANNON 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
v.  
 
DUSTIN SEAN McCABE,  
 
 
Defendant. 
 
 
 
 
                           / 
 
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER AUTHORIZING  
THE DISCLOSURE OF PII AND SENSITIVE VICTIM INFORMATION 
 
The United States of America moves this Court unopposed to enter a protective order 
regarding discovery to be provided to DUSTIN SEAN McCABE (the “Defendant”).  This 
discovery contains personal identification information (“PII”) of the victim in this case, M.C.G.F., 
as well as other sensitive information such as incident photos depicting M.C.G.F.’s physical 
condition, that merit this Court entering the attached Proposed Order in this matter.  The United 
States certifies that the parties have discussed this matter in good faith as required by Local Rule 
88.9.  The Defendant does not oppose this motion or the requested relief.  In support of this motion, 
the United States submits the following: 
1. 
On August 22, 2024, a grand jury sitting in the Southern District of Florida returned 
an Indictment charging the Defendant with one count of seaman’s manslaughter, in violation of 
Title 18, United States Code, Section 1115, one count of making a false statement or representation 
to a federal agency, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a)(2), and three 
counts of wire fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343. DE 3.   
2. 
The Defendant was arraigned on the charges on September 20, 2024, DE6, and 
United States Magistrate Judge William Matthewman issued the paperless Standing Discovery 
Order (“SDO”) that same day, requiring the United States to disclose to the Defendant materials 
Case 9:24-cr-80103-AMC   Document 17   Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2024   Page 1 of 5

2 
 
covered by the SDO.  (Id.).  In particular, the SDO requires the United States to provide the 
Defendant with documents and other items material to the preparation of the defense case, a 
requirement that is largely identical to the disclosure obligations imposed on the United States by 
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(1)(E). 
3. 
This case involves an incident aboard a vessel that the Defendant owned and 
operated which led to the vessel’s propeller killing the victim M.C.G.F.  The evidence to prove 
that crime primarily consists of witness interviews that include family members and other 
eyewitnesses, as well as autopsy records for the deceased. These materials include not only PII of 
the victim and other eyewitnesses but also sensitive and graphic photographs of the deceased 
immediately after she was killed.  
6. 
Pursuant to the SDO and the United States’ discovery obligations, the United States 
seeks to disclose to defense counsel records and documents that contain PII and other sensitive 
information.  Though some of the documents and files could be redacted, the full redaction of the 
sensitive material in the discovery would be impracticable in this case, as it would not provide the 
defense sufficient information about the facts without necessitating their physically appearing to 
review unredacted copies of the reports relating to this matter. This Motion and its accompanied 
Proposed Order seek to achieve the purpose of prompt disclosure of discovery by the government 
to the Defendant while simultaneously protecting the privacy rights of the victim and their family 
members. 
7. 
Accordingly, in order to ensure the protection of the above-described information 
and to prevent the disclosure of this information to other individuals, the United States requests 
that the Court enter the attached proposed protective order regulating disclosure of discovery as 
follows: 
Case 9:24-cr-80103-AMC   Document 17   Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2024   Page 2 of 5

3 
 
a.  Counsel of record for the Defendant shall hold the discovery materials in strict 
confidence, disclosing such materials to counsel’s client, staff, investigators, and witnesses 
only to the extent counsel believes is necessary to assist in the defense of this matter;  
b.   Counsel of record for the Defendant shall advise any person to whom the 
discovery materials are disclosed that, pursuant to the attached Proposed Protective Order, 
the information must be held in strict confidence and the recipient may not further disclose 
or disseminate the information without defense counsel’s express consent;  
c.   Counsel of record for the Defendant shall obtain a written certification from 
each person to whom the discovery is disclosed, in which the recipient (1) acknowledges 
these restrictions as set forth in the Protective Order of the Court, and (2) agrees that he or 
she will not disclose or disseminate the information without express consent of defense 
counsel.  Counsel shall keep a copy of each certification to identify the individuals who 
received the discovery and the date on which such information was first disclosed; and 
d.  Counsel of record agrees that, upon conclusion of the above-captioned case1, 
copies of the discovery disclosed by the United States shall be destroyed or returned to the 
United States. 
ANALYSIS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW 
 A trial court “can and should, where appropriate, place a defendant and his counsel under 
enforceable orders against unwarranted disclosure of the material which they may be entitled to 
inspect.”  Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 185 (1969); see generally United States v. 
Anderson, 799 F.2d 1438, 1441 (11th Cir. 1986) (noting “courts often order[ ] that discovery 
information will remain private.”).  Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1) authorizes the 
 
1 “Conclusion of the above-captioned case” means the period at the conclusion of any appellate 
and Section 2255 proceedings; if any, or upon expiration of the deadline for filing appellate or 
Section 2255 proceedings.    
Case 9:24-cr-80103-AMC   Document 17   Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2024   Page 3 of 5

4 
 
Court to issue the proposed protective order by permitting courts to deny, restrict, or defer pre-trial 
discovery when a party can demonstrate the need for these types of actions.  See Fed R. Crim. P. 
16(d)(1).  The United States does not seek to deny, restrict, or defer the disclosure of information 
required by Rule 16 or the SDO.  Instead, the United States only seeks to facilitate discovery, while 
protecting against the improper disclosure or use of any individual’s personal identification 
information and other sensitive material.  The proposed protective order would have no effect on 
the Defendant’s ability to prepare his defense and would protect the personal identification 
information of other individuals, including witnesses.  See, e.g., United States v. Fischel, 686 F.2d 
1082, 1090 (5th Cir. 1982) (stating that “[d]iscovery in criminal cases is narrowly limited [and] 
makes no provision for the production of the names and addresses of witnesses”).   
WHEREFORE, the United States respectfully requests that this Court, pursuant to the SDO 
and Rule 16(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, enter the attached proposed 
protective order concerning the disclosure of personal identification information and other 
sensitive material in connection with this case. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
    
 
 
 
 
 
MARKENZY LAPOINTE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Date: October 1, 2024  
 
By:   /s/ Tanner P. Stiehl 
 
 
Tanner P. Stiehl 
Assistant United States Attorney,  
US Attorney’s Office – SDFL 
FL Bar No. 1031487 
99 NE 4th Street, 6th Floor 
Miami, Florida 33132 
Tel: (786) 360-9752 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Email: tanner.Stiehl@usdoj.gov 
 
 
 
Case 9:24-cr-80103-AMC   Document 17   Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2024   Page 4 of 5

5 
 
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE 
 
I HEREBY CERTIFY that between September 28 October 30, 2024, I conferred with 
Calisha Angeline Francis, counsel for the Defendant, who indicated that the defense does not 
oppose this motion. 
 
/s/ Tanner P. Stiehl  
TANNER P. STIEHL 
Special Assistant United States Attorney 
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
 
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on October 1, 2024, I electronically filed the foregoing 
document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF.  
 
/s/ Tanner P. Stiehl 
Tanner P. Stiehl 
Special Assistant United States Attorney 
 
Case 9:24-cr-80103-AMC   Document 17   Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2024   Page 5 of 5

File and source

File
gov.uscourts.flsd.673624.17.0.pdf
Size
176,928 bytes
SHA-256
3fa46ea676f72341354121fe18be4ecf81114b511935f109b914aaa967e0b2f0
Our copy
gov.uscourts.flsd.673624.17.0.pdf
Original
PACER (login required)
Back to top