order re protective order

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ))

Plaintiff, ))

v. ) Case No. CR-08-041-L)

LARRY DOUGLAS FRIESEN, ))

Defendant. )

O R D E R

This order memorializes the court's rulings at the conclusion of the

Supplemental Hearing held in this matter in order to determine the circumstances

surrounding compliance with the terms of the Protective Order Regarding

Discovery previously entered in this case [Doc. No. 48] (“Protective Order”). The

court has reviewed the briefs filed by the parties in connection with Mr. Friesen's

Motion Requesting Order to Lift or Otherwise Modify Discovery Protective Order

for Limited Purpose [Doc. No. 162] (the “Motion”), and has also considered the

statements of Jacob Rowe and Joseph Wells, counsel in the case of Doug

Friesen v. Charles N. Erb, Jr., CIV-10-140-C (the “civil case”), as well as

statements of James P. Vann, counsel for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,

Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”).

The court finds that Mr. Friesen is entitled to the same information that has

previously been produced by the ATF in response to the Touhy request made by

Case 5:08-cr-00041-L Document 176 Filed 03/21/12 of 3

Mr. Wells on behalf of Mr. Erb in the civil case. Based on the court's

understanding that the ATF has copies of these documents and agrees that these

documents can be delivered to Mr. Rowe at the conclusion of today's hearing,

these materials will be turned over to Mr. Rowe. To the extent necessary given

the court's January 27, 2012 Order on this subject, the Protective Order is hereby

modified to reflect that the information turned over by the ATF to Mr. Rowe as

described above is not subject to the Protective Order. See Order, Doc. No. 159,

p. 2 (“This order for return of discovery materials and copies of such materials

expressly does not apply to any discovery materials obtained in the civil case

pursuant to a request under United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462

(1951) (“Touhy Request)).

Any additional discovery sought by Mr. Rowe on behalf of Mr. Friesen in

the civil case that is not covered by this ruling must be addressed by Judge

Cauthron in the civil case, as more fully discussed at the hearing.

Finally, the court expresses its concern regarding Mr. Vann's statement

that certain original computer disks have not been returned to the ATF as

represented by Mr. Rowe. The court advised all parties to determine the location

of these original computer disks and to make certain that the original disks have

been returned to the ATF in accordance with the orders of the court.

In summary, defendant's Motion Requesting Order to Lift or Otherwise

Modify Discovery Protective Order for Limited Purpose [Doc. No. 162] is

2


GRANTED as set forth above. In light of this order and comments of counsel,

defendant's Motion to Make More Definite and Certain [Doc. No. 168] is MOOT.

It is so ordered this 21st day of March, 2012.

3


order re protective order

Documents