Case 4:15-cr-00103-JAJ-HCA Document 52 Filed 08/18/15 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,
vs.
JESSE R. BENTON,
JOHN M. TATE, and
DIMITRIOS N. KESARI,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO: 4:15-cr-00103

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART GOVERNMENTS
MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

This matter came before the Court for a telephonic hearing August 17, 2015, on the
Governments Motion for Protective Order [ECF No. 33]. Appearing with respect to this motion
were Richard C. Pilger and Jonathan I. Kravis on behalf of the Government; Roscoe C. Howard,
Jr. and Meena T. Sinfelt on behalf of Defendant Jesse R. Benton; David Warrington and Paris R.
Sorrell on behalf of Defendant John M. Tate; and Jesse Binnall and Susannah Smith on behalf of
Defendant Dimitrios N. Keasari. Also appearing with respect to other matters were Guy Cook
and John Roche on behalf of Google, Inc. Defendants filed a joint opposition to the Motion for
Protective Order [ECF No. 38] and the Government filed a reply [ECF No. 41]. The Court
considers the matter to be fully submitted and ready for ruling. After consideration of the parties
written and oral submissions, the Governments motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED
IN PART, as noted below.
The Government seeks a protective order providing that copies of witness statements
(including interview reports, interview notes, and Grand Jury transcripts) (hereinafter referred to
as Statements) not be left with any defendant. In essence, defendants can view and be aware of

Case 4:15-cr-00103-JAJ-HCA Document 52 Filed 08/18/15 Page 2 of 3

the content of Statements but cannot possess a copy of such Statements. The Government
correctly notes that such a provision is standard in the Stipulated Discovery and Protective Order
template used in criminal cases in the Southern District of Iowa. That fact alone, however, should
not dictate the result. Rather, the Court should strive to balance the need for a protective order
with a defendants assistance in the preparation of his defense.
The Government seeks the protective order due to the general sensitivity surrounding
witness statements and also due to a concern that one or more Defendant might leak information
contained in the Statements. Defendants object to the requested provision as they believe it would
hamper their ability to prepare for trial, in large part due to geographic issues as Defendants are
not located in the same cities as their clients and because the lawyers staff would have to be
present when Defendants reviewed documents. The largest geographic gulf exits between Mr.
Benton and his counsel as Mr. Benton is located in Kentucky and his counsel are located in
Washington, D.C. Defendants Tate and Kesari are located outside of Washington, D.C., proper,
but in the general area, with legal counsel in Alexandria, Virginia.
The Court believes the Governments concerns can be assuaged through a protective order
that allows each Defendant to view a CD with the Statements in his lawyers law firm in a private
office without the need for a member of the lawyers staff to be present in the room. Each
Defendant may take notes about the Statements for discussion with counsel, but those notes shall
be maintained in a secure location in the respective lawyers office. In the case of Mr. Benton,
his lawyers may make arrangements with a Kentucky law firm or court reporter to be the custodian
of the CD of the Statements at issue and Mr. Benton may review the Statements in that persons
office so that he does not have to travel to Washington, D.C., to review them. Defendants shall
not make any copies of the CDs or Statements and may not take any of the CDs, Statements or

Case 4:15-cr-00103-JAJ-HCA Document 52 Filed 08/18/15 Page 3 of 3

related notes from the lawyers office.

Additionally, the protective order should contain a

provision that Defendants should not discuss the content of the Statements with anyone, such as
the media, with the exception of Defendants respective lawyers and their lawyers staff, including
any private investigators retained by defense counsel. Such a protective order also allows
Defendants an opportunity to review the Statements and provide input into their respective
defenses.
Accordingly, the Court grants in part the Governments Motion for Protective Order. On
or before August 20, 2015, counsel for the Government shall provide the Court and defense
counsel with a proposed protective order which references the provisions of the Stipulated
Discovery and Protective Order already agreed to by the parties and then adds supplemental
provisions consistent with this ruling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 18, 2015.