Order on Proposed Protective Order — United States v. Leon Haynes, No. 2:24-cr-232 (D.N.J.)

Summary

An Order filed July 29, 2024 as Document 24 in United States of America v. Leon Haynes, No. 2:24-cr-232 (WJM), in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, issued by William J. Martini, U.S.D.J. It addresses the parties' emailed letters dated July 9, 2024 on a dispute over a proposed protective order, in which defense counsel opposes paragraph 14, the return or destruction of disclosure material. The Court orders that the letters be filed on the public docket, finds that the Government has shown good cause for the paragraph 14 requirement, and orders that the proposed order be amended so the Government retains all disclosure material. It also orders the parties to meet and confer on whether the order is limited to materials containing PII, and to jointly submit a proposed protective order no later than August 13, 2024.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

 Case 2:24-cr-00232-WJM           Document 24      Filed 07/29/24    Page 1 of 3 PageID: 92




                         UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                        FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY



 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


                                                              No. 2:24-cr-232 (WJM)
        V.




 LEONHAYNES, | ^^
               Defendant.




WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.:

       THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon the parties' emailed letters dated
July 9, 2024 regarding a dispute pertaining to a proposed protective order pursuant to Rule
16(d)(l) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

       WHEREAS Defendant Leon Haynes has been charged in a 63 "count indictment
with 55 counts of aiding and assisting in the preparation of false tax returns, in violation of
26 U.S.C. § 7206(2); five counts of mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341; one count
of aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A; and two counts of tax
evasion, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201, ECFNo. 16;


       WHEREAS pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(l), "[a]t any
time the court may, for good cause, deny, restrict, or defer discovery or inspection, or
grant other appropriate relief.

      WHEREAS the Government seeks the entry of a proposed protective order
("Proposed Protective Order"), Ex. A to Gov'fs Ltr., "to facilitate the prompt exchange of
discovery materials to the defense, while protecting privacy rights and safety concerns of
victims and unrelated third parties and protecting from disclosure information about an
ongoing investigation." Gov't's Ltr. at 3;

       WHEREAS defense counsel opposes the Inclusion of paragraph 14 of the Proposed
Protective Order, which states:

       14. Except for Disclosure Material that has been made part of the record of
       this case, the defense shall return to the Government or securely destroy or
       delete all Disclosure Material within 30 days of: (a) the expiration of the
       period for direct appeal from any verdict in the above-captioned case; (b) the

                                               1
Case 2:24-cr-00232-WJM         Document 24       Filed 07/29/24     Page 2 of 3 PageID: 93




       expiration of the period of direct appeal from any order dismissing any of the
       charges in the above-captioned case; (c) the granting of any motion made on
       behalf of the Government dismissing any charges in the above-captioned
       case; or (d) the issuance of an opinion by an appellate court that terminates
       the case, whichever date is later.

       WHEREAS defense counsel argues that because "[c]riniinal cases have lifelong
consequences and attorneys revisit criminal convictions on a regular basis[J" the
requirement specified in paragraph 14 of the Proposed Protective Order: (1) significantly
infringes the ability to revisit the case; (2) could deprive Mr. PIaynes of his constitutional
right to present a defense in the future; and (3) could cause counsel to not be able to render
effective assistance to Mr. Haynes in the future if the case gets reviewed and the Federal
Public Defenders Office has destroyed the discovery, Defs. Ltr. at 1;

       WHEREAS defense counsel also asks the Court to "fashion language" that makes
it clear that the protective order only applies to materials that contain Personally
Identifiable Information ("PU"), Def/s Ltr. at 2;

       WHEREAS the nature of the charges raises concerns regarding Defendant's prior
alleged misuse ofPII and other victim information, see United States v. Torres^ No. 20-
CR-00418, 2020 WL 4500046, at ^5 n.2 (D.N.J. Aug. 5, 2020);

       WHEREAS the Government has proffered that there is a voluminous amount of
discovery in this case that contains (1) tax and bank records; (2) the PII of more than one
thousand third parties, including victims and witnesses; and (3) information relating to an
ongoing investigation ofuncharged individuals by the Government, GovTs Ltr. at 1-2, 5;
and

       WHEREAS the parties have not previously met and conferred telephonically or in-
person to discuss these issues. Ex. B to Gov'fs Ltr.;


       IT IS, on this^Tftey of l^^^l^ 2024,

       ORDERED that the parties aTe to file their letters dated July 9, 2024, along with all
corresponding exhibits, on the public docket for this case; and it is further

       ORDERED that the Government has shown good cause for the inclusion of a
requirement that all disclosure material subject to the protective order that Is not made part
of the record of this case shall be returned to the Government or securely destroyed or
deleted by the defense in accordance with the timelines specified in paragraph 14 of the
Proposed Protective Order, see Torres, 2020 WL 4500046, at ^5 & n.2; and it is further

       ORDERED that the Proposed Protective Order shall be amended to reflect an
obligation on behalf of the Government to retain all disclosure material subject to the
 Case 2:24-cr-00232-WJM          Document 24      Filed 07/29/24     Page 3 of 3 PageID: 94




protective order so that Defendant is not precluded from later requesting new copies of
disclosure material that is relevant for use in habeas corpus proceedings or later collateral
attacks, see United States v. Tsethlikai, No. 18-CR-1392-WJ, 2018 WL 3801248, at ^
(D.N.M. Aug. 9, 2018); and it is further

       ORDERED that the parties meet and confer to discuss defense counsel's concern
regarding whether the scope of the Proposed Protective Order is limited only to discovery
materials containing PII; and it is further

       ORDERED that no later than August 13, 2024, the parties shall jointly submit a
proposed protective order that is consistent with the findings set forth in this Order.




                                                                      ^^
                                                               yiVtARTINI,U.S.D.J.


File and source

File

24.pdf

Size

126,596 bytes

SHA-256

0124a26db9a921a362589123236d091df1202cf9075d2c5642c6e98079ce14d1

Our copy

24.pdf

Original

No public link identified.