View
10
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION In re:
CITY OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN,
Debtor.
_______________________________/
Chapter 9
Case No. 13-53846
Hon. Thomas J. Tucker
RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND
SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT REGARDING PROTECTIVE ORDER IN THE FLINT CRIMINAL CASES
Respondent Department of Attorney General, by and through
Assistant Attorney General John VanDeventer, respectfully moves this
Court for leave to file a second supplemental statement, attached hereto
as Exhibit 2, updating the Court on the status of Respondent’s motion
for amended protective order in the Flint criminal cases, and
respectfully states as follows:
1. Respondent believes that the attached supplemental
statement contains information relevant to the Court’s consideration of
this matter.
2. Movant has concurred in the relief sought.
13-53846-tjt Doc 13434 Filed 09/01/21 Entered 09/01/21 13:27:00 Page 1 of 2
1
WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully requests that the Court
enter an order, substantially in the form of the proposed order attached
hereto as Exhibit 1, granting Respondent leave to file the attached
second supplemental statement.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ John D. VanDeventer MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL G. Mennen Williams Building 525 W. Ottawa Street P.O. Box 30212 Lansing, MI 48909 (517) 335-7622 vandeventerj@michigan.gov Illinois #6315809 Fadwa Hammoud MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL Cadillac Place, Suite 10-200 3030 W. Grand Boulevard Detroit, MI 48202 (313) 456-0240 Hammoudf1@michigan.gov P74185
Dated: September 1, 2021 SG FW Snyder USBK/Respondent’s Motion to File 2nd Supplemental Statement AG2021-0309218-C
13-53846-tjt Doc 13434 Filed 09/01/21 Entered 09/01/21 13:27:00 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
In re:
CITY OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN,
Debtor.
_______________________________/
Chapter 9
Case No. 13-53846
Hon. Thomas J. Tucker
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT
This matter having come before the Court on Respondent
Department of Attorney General’s Motion for Leave to File Second
Supplemental Statement Regarding Protective Order in the Flint
Criminal Cases (the “Motion”), all parties having been given adequate
notice and opportunity to be heard, and the Court having reviewed the
Motion and finding good and sufficient cause therefore;
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The Motion is GRANTED.
2. Respondent may submit its statement attached to the
Motion.
Signed on: /s/______________________________ Thomas J. Tucker United States Bankruptcy Judge
SG FW Snyder USBK/Ex 1 - Respondent’s Motion to File 2nd Supplemental Statement AG2021-0309218-C
Ex. 1
13-53846-tjt Doc 13434-1 Filed 09/01/21 Entered 09/01/21 13:27:00 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
In re: CITY OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN,
Debtor. _______________________________/
Chapter 9 Case No. 13-53846 Hon. Thomas J. Tucker
RESPONDENT’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT REGARDING PROTECTIVE ORDER IN THE FLINT
CRIMINAL CASES
Respondent files this Second Supplemental Statement to update
the Court on the status of Respondent’s Motion for Amended Protective
Order. On August 10, 2021, the Genesee County Circuit Court heard
argument on the Motion for Amended Protective Order. At that
hearing, Respondent argued that there was good cause to amend the
protective order to further emphasize that all privileged and
confidential documents shared in the course of discovery remain
privileged and confidential. The proposed amended protective order
also would have specifically required the approval of this Court prior to
the use of any documents covered by this Court’s confidentiality order.
Prior to the hearing, Respondent sought consensus on the proposed
Ex. 2
13-53846-tjt Doc 13434-2 Filed 09/01/21 Entered 09/01/21 13:27:00 Page 1 of 3
1
amended protective order from each of the Flint defendants, including
Movant, but received none.
On August 25, 2021, Respondent filed a Supplemental Statement
with this Court to update the Court on the status of Respondent’s
motion. Respondent attached a copy of the proposed amended
protective order to that statement.
On August 30, 2021, the Genesee County Circuit Court issued an
opinion denying Respondent’s Motion for Amended Protective Order.
The circuit court’s opinion also lifted its previous order staying all
discovery pending the court’s decision on the motion. The court’s
opinion is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ John D. VanDeventer MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL G. Mennen Williams Building 525 W. Ottawa StreetP.O. Box 30212Lansing, MI 48909(517) 335-7622vandeventerj@michigan.gov Illinois #6315809
Fadwa Hammoud
13-53846-tjt Doc 13434-2 Filed 09/01/21 Entered 09/01/21 13:27:00 Page 2 of 3
2
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL Cadillac Place, Suite 10-200 3030 W. Grand Boulevard Detroit, MI 48202 (313) 456-0240Hammoudf1@michigan.govP74185
Dated: September 1, 2021 SG FW Snyder USBK/Ex 2 - Respondent’s Motion to File 2nd Supplemental Statement AG2021-0309218-C
13-53846-tjt Doc 13434-2 Filed 09/01/21 Entered 09/01/21 13:27:00 Page 3 of 3
STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE 7TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF GENESEE
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff,
V
JARROD AGEN GERALD AMBROSE RICHARD BAIRD DARNELL EARLEY NICOLAS LYON NANCY PEELER EDEN WELLS,
Defendants.
Case No. 21-047372-FH (Agen) 21-047373-FH (Ambrose)21-047374-FH (Ambrose)21-047375-FH (Baird)21-047376-FH (Earley)21-047377-FH (Earley)21-047378-FH (Lyon)21-047379-FH (Peeler)21-047380-FH (Wells)
HON. ELIZABETH A. KELLY
-------------------------------
ORDER DENYING PEOPLE'S "MOTION FOR AN AMENDED PROTECTIVE
ORDER" AND PEOPLE'S "AMENDED MOTION FOR AN AMENDED PROTECTIVE
ORDER"
At a session of said Court held in the Courthouse, In the City of Flint, County of Genesee, Michigan
Thursday, August 26, 2021:
PRESENT: THE HONORABLE ELIZABETH A. KELLY
INTRODUCTION
The People have filed with this Court a "Motion for an Amended Protective Order" and
"Amended Motion for an Amended Protective Order" in the above captioned cases. Oral
arguments were heard on August 10, 2021, and briefs were filed.
On April 7, 2021, this Court entered protective orders in People v Agen, People v Ambrose,
People v Baird, People v Earley, People v Lyon, People v Peeler, and People v Wells. The current
protective orders were stipulated to by Jarrod Agen, Gerald Ambrose, Richard Baird, Darnell
Earley, Nicolas Lyon, Nancy Peeler, Eden Wells (hereinafter "Defendants") and the People. Now,
Ex. A
13-53846-tjt Doc 13434-3 Filed 09/01/21 Entered 09/01/21 13:27:00 Page 1 of 4
months after stipulating to the current protective orders, the People seek amendments to those same
orders.
ANALYSIS
Pursuant to MCR 6.201, a finding of "good cause" is required for this Court to amend the
existing protective order. MCR 6.201(E) states, "On motion and a showing of good cause, the
court may enter an appropriate protective order." MCR 6.201(E) provides guidance on what a
court may consider when determining "good cause." MCR 6.201(E) states in relevant part:
In considering whether good cause exists, the court shall consider the parties' interests in a fair trial; the risk to any person of harm, undue annoyance, intimidation, embarrassment, or threats; the risk that evidence will be fabricated; and the need for secrecy regarding the identity of informants or other law enforcement matters.
Notably, if this Court finds "good cause" and enters a protective order, "it must seal and preserve
the record of the hearing for review in the event of an appeal." Id.
In Dep 't of Health & Hum Servs v Genesee Cir Judge, 318 Mich App 395, 410 (2016), the
Michigan Court of Appeals provided useful insight into MCR 6.201(E). In the case, the Genesee
County Prosecutor's Office, McLaren Flint Hospital, and Special Assistant Attorney General Todd
F. Flood sought protective orders from the Genesee County Circuit Court. Id. at 398. However,
the proponents of the protective orders never filed petitions setting forth the legal basis for the
protective orders. Id. at 398, 404 .Ultimately, the protective orders were vacated by the Michigan
Court of Appeals. Id. at 398. While deciding to vacate the protective orders, the Michigan Court
of Appeals reaffirmed that MCR 6.201(E) governs protective orders in criminal cases. Id. at 408.
Likewise, as set forth in the Michigan Court Rules, the court expressed that a showing of "good
cause" is necessary for the issuance of a protective order. Id. at 409.
Here, the People seek to amend the current protective orders "out of an abundance of
caution and to avoid further disputes going forward." Motion for Amended Protective Order at 2,
13-53846-tjt Doc 13434-3 Filed 09/01/21 Entered 09/01/21 13:27:00 Page 2 of 4
People v Wells (Mich Cir Ct Jun 10, 2021) (No 21-04738-FH). The People claim that the "good
cause" requirement is satisfied because the amendments are necessary "to clarify the protection of
privileged and confidential documents in this case both to ensure that privilege is preserved and to
avoid any further delay in the prosecution of this case." Id. Additionally, the People provide
conclusory statements regarding the need for the amendment, but provide little explanation or
analysis regarding the necessity of the proposed amendments.
In response to the motions, Defendants filed multiple briefs and articulated numerous
reasons for objecting to the People's requested relief. Although Defendants raise multiple
arguments opposing the proposed amendments, this Court is primarily persuaded by the core
requirement of the request: "good cause."
Pursuant to MCR 6.201(E), a finding of "good cause" is required for this Court to amend
the existing protective orders. In determining whether "good cause" exists to amend the existing
protective orders, this Court considers the reasoning and factual basis articulated in the People's
and Defendants' briefs. Of paramount importance, the current protective orders were negotiated
and stipulated to by all parties. If the People were not satisfied with the language of the protective
orders as written, then they should not have stipulated to their entry.
Perhaps most compelling, is the fact that the People stipulated to the entry of the current
protective orders. Persuasive legal reasoning and strong factual argument are necessary to
overcome this cogent fact and support a finding of "good cause." Nonetheless, the People provided
this Court with conclusory argument and minimal discussion regarding the requested amendments.
As such, this Court is not persuaded that the People have established the "good cause" necessary
for their requested relief. For the foregoing reasons, the People's motions must be DENIED and
the current protective orders shall stand.
13-53846-tjt Doc 13434-3 Filed 09/01/21 Entered 09/01/21 13:27:00 Page 3 of 4
On August 17, 2021, this Court entered an "Order in Response to People's Motion for an
Amended Protective Order", which prevented the People from disseminating discovery pending
the Court's decision on this matter. As a result of this opinion and order, the Court's August 17,
2021, order is now lifted.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED: People's "Motion for an Amended Protective Order" and "Amended Motion for an Amended Protective Order" are DENIED for the reasons stated above.
Dated:
,.,.,,. ... ,,,,,...... .
''�, .. .,
ELIZABETH A. KELL y. W.J:17�
Circuit Judge ,,.,./ ) /
,.,,,
,/ - -----·L_ .... ,.......,._ .. -.,.,,,,.-... -
SG FW Snyder USBK/Ex A - Respondent’s Motion to File 2nd Supplemental Statement AG2021-0309218-C
13-53846-tjt Doc 13434-3 Filed 09/01/21 Entered 09/01/21 13:27:00 Page 4 of 4
Recommended