Doc.235-1.pdf

7/30/2019 Doc.235-1.pdf

1/7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 08-20612-CR-SEITZ

Magistrate Judge John J. OSuliivan

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs.

TRAIAN BUJDUVEANU,

Defendant.

________________________________/

GOVERNMENTS MOTION TO STRIKE AND SEAL

DEFENDANTBUJDUVEANUSPRO SE PLEADINGS

The United States of America, through the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney,

files this Motion to Strike Defendant Bujduveanus Pro Se Pleadings from the record and to have

those Pro Se Pleadings Sealed from the Public Record and to Request that the Court Instruct the

Defendant to discontinue the filing ofpro se documents in the Court file, and states:

Defendant Bujduveanu has been represented by counsel in the instant case since his initial

appearance on June 23, 2008. Therefore, pursuant to Southern District of Florida Local Rule

11.1.D.4, the defendant cannot act on his own behalf by filing pro se motions without first

seeking and obtaining a court order of substitution of counsel. Southern District of Florida

Local Rule 11.1.D.4 provides:

Whenever a party has appeared by attorney, the party cannot thereafter appear or

act on the partys own behalf in the action or proceeding, or take any step therein,

unless an order of substitution shall first have been made by the Court, after notice

1

Case 1:08-cr-20612-PAS Document 235 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2009 Page 1 of 7

7/30/2019 Doc.235-1.pdf

2/7

to the attorney of such party, and to the opposite party; provided, that the Courtmay in its discretion hear a party in open court, notwithstanding the fact that the

party has appeared or is represented by an attorney.

The defendant has been advised of the prohibition against the filing ofpro se pleading by

represented parties on several occasions in this case. For example, in a response to several of the

defendants early pro se motions, the Government pointed out that the filing of such pro se

pleadings violated this Courts Local Rules. See D.E. 81. Shortly thereafter, this Court issued an

Order Striking the Defendants Pro Se Motions and, in that Order, this Court advised that a

defendant represented by counsel may not file pro se motions. See D.E. 84. Later, during the

defendants Sentencing Hearing before this Court, the defendant, through his counsel, indicated

that he had no objection to having hispro se pleadings stricken from the record. See Transcript

of June 11, 2009, Sentencing Hearing at 42:20. At the Sentencing Hearing, the Government and

counsel for the defendant agreed that we would provide the Court with an agreed order striking

the pro se pleadings. However, before we completed the proposed agreed order, the defendant

began filing morepro se pleadings, which he has continued to do to the count of at least six new

pro se pleadings since the sentencing hearing.

The continued filing ofpro se pleadings by the defendant presents numerous problems.

The first problem is that, as stated above, the defendant is prohibited from filing the pro se

pleadings because he is represented by counsel. Second, the pleadings present a substantial

burden on the Government, as Government attorneys and investigators actually take the time to

review the pleadings to determine, for example, whether a response is necessary or whether the

information needs to be turned over to law enforcement for further consideration. Third, the

2


7/30/2019 Doc.235-1.pdf

3/7

pleadings no doubt present a burden to the Court, which must at least determine whether action

by the Court is appropriate, and to the Clerks Office, which must take the time to enter each of

the pleadings into the docketing system. Finally, as stated by undersigned counsel during the

defendants sentencing hearing, the pleadings are causing a flow of false, inaccurate, misleading,

and irrelevant information into the public record. Given that the Government is engaged in

ongoing criminal prosecutions in related matters, the pleadings present potential problems for the

Government in those other cases.

The undersigned attorney for the Government has contacted the Clerks Office to

determine whether it is possible to have the pro se pleadings removed from the public record.

Even though this Court has entered an order striking some of the earlier pleadings, those

pleadings still appear in the public record. The striking of the pleading, therefore, has little

effect and clearly has not deterred the defendant. The Clerks Office has advised that the only

way to restrict those documents from public access is to seal them. Therefore, the undersigned

is requesting, in the instant Motion, that this Court also enter an Order sealing the listed pro se

pleadings. The Court record is not the appropriate place for the defendant to be filing these

pleadings. If the pleadings are not an available avenue for him to publicize irrelevant

information, perhaps he will be deterred from future in appropriate filings in the record in this

case.

Undersigned counsel for the Government has conferred with counsel for Defendant

Bujduveanu who indicated that he has no objection to the filing of the instant motion.

3


7/30/2019 Doc.235-1.pdf

4/7

4

WHEREFORE, the Government respectfully requests that this Court direct the defendant

to stop filing pro se pleadings in the Court record in this case. The Government also

respectfully requests that the Court strike all of the defendants pro se pleadings to date, as well

as any futurepro se pleadings, so long as the defendant continues to be represented by counsel.

A list of the pro se pleadings to date is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Finally the Government

respectfully requests that this Court direct the Clerk of the Court to seal the stricken pleadings

from the public record such that they are not accessible to anyone who is not a party to the case or

who has not entered an appearance in the case.

Respectfully submitted,

JEFFREY H. SLOMANACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

By: _____/S/_________________________________

MELISSA DAMIANASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

Fla. Bar No. 0068063

99 N.E. 4th Street, Suite 600Miami, Florida 33132

Telephone: (305) 961-9018

Facsimile: (305) 536-4675


7/30/2019 Doc.235-1.pdf

5/7

5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on June 26, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk

of the Court by using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing to MichaelCohen, counsel for Defendant Traian Bujduveanu.

Melissa Damian

Assistant United States Attorney

_/S/_________________________

Melissa Damian

Assistant United States Attorney


7/30/2019 Doc.235-1.pdf

6/7

6

EXHIBIT A


7/30/2019 Doc.235-1.pdf

7/7

7

PRO SE PLEADINGS

BY DOCKET ENTRY NUMBER

D.E. 52

D.E. 67 (Already stricken by Court Order D.E. 84)

D.E. 70 (Already stricken by Court Order D.E. 84)D.E. 72 (Already stricken by Court Order D.E. 84)





D.E. 80

D.E. 83

D.E. 85

D.E. 86

D.E. 92

D.E. 94

D.E. 95

D.E. 97

D.E. 98

D.E. 99

D.E. 100

D.E. 101

D.E. 104

D.E. 113

D.E. 117

D.E. 151

D.E. 154

D.E. 155

D.E. 156

D.E. 157

D.E. 158

D.E. 159

D.E. 161

D.E. 162D.E. 163

D.E. 165

D.E. 167

D.E. 169

D.E. 170

D.E. 193

D.E. 194

D.E. 195

D.E. 197

D.E. 199

D.E. 200

D.E. 204

D.E. 209

D.E. 210

D.E. 211

D.E. 212

D.E. 213

D.E. 218

D.E. 219

D.E. 223

D.E. 228

D.E. 229

D.E. 230

D.E. 231

D.E. 232


Documents

Doc.235-1.pdf