Text of Proposed Order — USA v. Harun (Dkt. 64-1, S.D. Ga.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia · No. 3:22-cr-00009-DHB-BKE · Doc. 64-1 · 2022-09-26 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

1 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 
DUBLIN DIVISION 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
v. 
 
GLADYS HARUN 
 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
 
CASE NO. 3:22-CR-09 
 
ORDER 
 
 
Pending before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion for a Protective Order 
Governing Certain Discovery, wherein the parties request the process detailed below 
be used in the review and production of materials obtained from three search 
warrants (docs. 51, 55, and 59, collectively “Three Warrants”).  Based upon the 
parties’ joint application, and for good cause shown therein, it is hereby ORDERED 
that the following procedures shall be used to filter records directly obtained from the 
Three Warrants: 
I. 
Designation of Filter Agent 
a. U.S. Secret Service Special Agent J. Craig Reno, Resident Agent in 
Charge of the Savannah Resident Office, shall serve as the filter agent to review 
potentially protected material produced as a result of the Three Warrants.  Special 
Agent Reno has not been directly involved in the investigation of this case and will 
not be involved with the primary prosecution team’s investigation moving forward, 
unless some further privilege issue arises requiring additional review. 
II. 
Prohibitions on Filter Agent 
a. As filter agent, Special Agent Reno is prohibited from discussing with 
Case 3:22-cr-00009-DHB-BKE     Document 64-1     Filed 09/26/22     Page 1 of 6

 
 
2 
any agent or prosecutor assigned to this case, or any other person not assigned to the 
filter team, any protected information he learns as a result of his assignment to this 
filter team.  He may not reveal or discuss the contents of any document, file, or item 
determined to contain presumptively protected or potentially protected material to 
any other person, except counsel for the appropriate defendant, unless otherwise 
ordered by this Court or first obtaining approval of this Court.  Should he be 
subpoenaed to provide any protected information, he should provide a copy of this 
Order to any person or entity subpoenaing him and alert counsel for Defendant.  
III. 
 Review by the Filter Agent 
a. Special Agent Reno shall be responsible for making the initial 
determination as to whether any of the seized items contain protected information. 
He has submitted the email search warrants to Google and Yahoo, and he has 
submitted the cellular phone to be imaged by U.S. Secret Service’s forensic office in 
Atlanta.     
b.   In all instances, in making the initial determination as to whether a 
document or item contains protected material, Special Agent Reno should err on the 
side of caution and treat any questionable item as protected material.   
c. If the document or item contains protected material, Special Agent Reno 
should redact or extract the protected material as instructed below.     
d. As to the cellular phone, the entire contents of the phone shall be 
“imaged” or copied by a forensic computer analyst or other qualified designated 
individual.  The original cellular phone should then be placed in a sealed container, 
Case 3:22-cr-00009-DHB-BKE     Document 64-1     Filed 09/26/22     Page 2 of 6

 
 
3 
which should be lodged in a secure evidence room and should not be opened by anyone 
other than Special Agent Reno, absent a court order.  The container should be labeled: 
“Contains potentially protected material.”  The individual imaging or copying the 
contents of the cellular phone shall not access or review any of its image or copy, 
unless authorized by and consistent with these instructions.   
i. After a forensic image of the cellular phone is created, in order to 
identify protected communications, Special Agent Reno may then access the item and 
conduct a keyword search, utilizing keywords jointly provided by the AUSA and 
counsel for Defendant.   
ii. Special Agent Reno will review the materials on the cellular 
phone to determine whether the items are protected.   
iii. If any protected material is identified in that or any other 
manner, the Special Agent Reno will redact the material, or if redaction is not 
possible, extract the material by placing it on separate media, place the media in a 
container identified as containing potentially protected information, and seal the 
container when not being reviewed.  Further, if an item appears to be protected, 
Special Agent Reno should not review the item, except as necessary to make the 
initial determination.   
e. As to the email search warrant returns, Special Agent Reno shall review 
all items seized by conducting a keyword search, utilizing keywords jointly provided 
by the AUSA and counsel for Defendant, and determine whether the item contains 
protected material.  If any protected material is identified in that or any other 
Case 3:22-cr-00009-DHB-BKE     Document 64-1     Filed 09/26/22     Page 3 of 6

 
 
4 
manner, he should redact the material, or if redaction is not possible, extract the 
material by placing it on separate media, place the media in a container identified as 
containing potentially protected information, and seal the container when not being 
reviewed.  Further, if an item appears to be protected, Special Agent Reno should not 
review the item, except as necessary to make the initial determination.   
f. If an item may contain protected material but Special Agent Reno is not 
certain, he may consult with a filter AUSA.  If a filter AUSA is needed, counsel for 
Defendant shall be advised of the AUSA, and such AUSA may not be involved in the 
investigation or prosecution of the case, nor should the filter AUSA discuss any 
protected information with any agent or prosecutor assigned to this case that he or 
she learns as a result of his/her assignment to the filter team.   
IV. 
Transmission to Defense Counsel 
a. Once Special Agent Reno completes his review and has redacted or 
otherwise extracted protected material, Special Agent Reno shall send all materials 
directly obtained from the Three Warrants to Counsel for Defendant in a manner that 
identifies which protected material has been redacted or extracted.   
b. Upon receipt, counsel for Defendant should review the materials to 
ensure all protected materials are redacted or extracted.  If defense counsel believes 
further redactions are necessary, he shall alert Special Agent Reno and any filter 
AUSA.  If a dispute arises about the need to redact/extract further protected material, 
counsel for defendant and the filter AUSA may raise those issues to the Court in a 
sealed manner that does not expose any potentially protected material to the 
Case 3:22-cr-00009-DHB-BKE     Document 64-1     Filed 09/26/22     Page 4 of 6

 
 
5 
prosecution team. 
V. 
Transmission to Prosecution Team 
a. After counsel for Defendant has completed his review and determines 
no further protected material remains, Special Agent Reno shall make a copy of non-
protected files, data, documents, images or other material obtained from the Three 
Warrants and provide the copy to investigative agents and prosecutors.  Another copy 
will be lodged in the Secret Service’s evidence room.   
10. 
If, despite the procedures outlined above, an investigative agent or 
prosecutor finds in the items provided by the filter team any tangible, documentary, 
or electronic data that appears to contain protected information, they will not 
examine it further, and will immediately notify Special Agent Reno and counsel for 
Defendant. 
VI. 
Applicable Legal Standards 
a. In reviewing items pursuant to this Order, Special Agent Reno is 
advised that the attorney-client privilege “protects disclosures made by a client to his 
attorney, in confidence, for the purpose of securing legal advice or assistance.”  Knox 
v. Roper Pump Co., 957 F.3d 1237, 1248 (11th Cir. 2020).  Its purpose is “to encourage 
full and frank communication between attorneys and their clients and thereby 
promote broader public interests in the observance of law and administration of 
justice.”  United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 562 (1989) (internal quotation marks 
omitted).   
b. The attorney work product doctrine, on the other hand, “extends to 
Case 3:22-cr-00009-DHB-BKE     Document 64-1     Filed 09/26/22     Page 5 of 6

 
 
6 
material obtained or prepared by counsel in the course of their legal duties provided 
that the work was done with an eye toward litigation.”  Drummond Co., Inc. v. Conrad 
& Scherer, LLP, 885 F.3d 1324, 1334–35 (11th Cir. 2018) (citations omitted).  That 
doctrine 
prevents 
inquiries 
into 
an 
attorney’s 
work 
files 
and 
mental 
impressions.  Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 510, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947). 
The purpose of this protection is to protect the integrity of the adversary process by 
allowing a lawyer to work “with a certain degree of privacy, free from unnecessary 
intrusion by opposing parties and their counsel.”  Id. 
 
So ORDERED this ________ day of September, 2022. 
 
 
 
 
 
______________________________________ 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE, U.S. DISTRICT COURT 
 
 
 
 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 
 
 
 
Case 3:22-cr-00009-DHB-BKE     Document 64-1     Filed 09/26/22     Page 6 of 6

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.gasd.87462.64.1.pdf

Size

117,965 bytes

SHA-256

9c9d2c0c041814240eed3855bb9586173b43453fd9dc175dd1900e732db58d5a

Our copy

gov.uscourts.gasd.87462.64.1.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)