Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-mj-70176/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-mj-70176-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John C. Fry
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

ORDER – No. 19-mj-70176-LB

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

San Francisco Division 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JOHN C. FRY, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 19-mj-70176-LB 

ORDER REGARDING EX-PARTE 

EMERGENCY REQUEST 

Re: ECF No. 9 

INTRODUCTION 

The United States has charged the defendant John Fry in a complaint with unauthorized 

disclosure of suspicious-activity reports, in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5322(a).1

 On February 22, 

2019, Mr. Fry filed an emergency ex-parte request for relief to address possible government leaks 

to the media about the case, allegedly in violation of federal law, the court’s sealing order, ethical 

rules, and Department of Justice policies.2

 He sought the following relief: (1) a court-ordered 

referral to the Department of Justice for an investigation to determine the source of the leaks; (2) a 

stay of proceedings, including grand-jury proceedings, pending that investigation (on the ground 

 

1

 Compl. – ECF No. 1. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint 

citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents. 

2

 Ex-Parte Emergency Request – ECF No. 9 at 2–3. 

Case 3:19-mj-70176-LB Document 10 Filed 02/23/19 Page 1 of 6
ORDER – No. 19-mj-70176-LB 2

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

that the investigation might result in the recusal of the United States Attorney’s office); (3) an 

order to show cause why the court should not hold the government in contempt for violating the 

court’s February 4, 2019 order sealing the complaint; and (4) other relief, including a gag order.3

The court held a hearing on February 22, 2019, denies the motion for court-mandated relief 

without prejudice, and issues this order to memorialize its decisions and the remedial measures 

that it suggested at the hearing. 

STATEMENT 

The government filed its complaint on February 4, 2019.4 It asked for — and the court 

authorized on February 4, 2019 — the sealed filing of the complaint and the summons on the 

ground that the investigation was ongoing.5 It also asked to provide a copy of the complaint to Mr. 

Fry’s attorney, and the court authorized that request.6 

Mr. Fry made his initial appearance on February 21, 2019.7 At the hearing, the court unsealed 

the complaint, which describes Mr. Fry’s alleged conduct.8 The court set a bond, set a preliminary 

hearing date of March 13, 2019, excluded time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 

3161(h)(7)(B)(iv), and extended the time for a preliminary hearing and indictment until March 13, 

2019 under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1 and the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 

3161(b).9

On February 22, 2019, Mr. Fry filed the emergency ex-parte request.10 In it, he described (and 

linked to) a media report that revealed — among other things — the parties’ plea negotiations, the 

 

3 Id. at 4. Defense counsel asked for a gag order at the hearing. 

4

 Compl. – ECF No. 1. 

5

 Mot. to Seal and Order – ECF No. 2 at 1. 

6 Id. 

7

 2/21/2019 Minute Entry – ECF No. 3. 

8 Id.

9 Id.; Stipulated Order – ECF No. 8. 

10 Ex-Parte Emergency Request – ECF No. 9. 

Case 3:19-mj-70176-LB Document 10 Filed 02/23/19 Page 2 of 6
ORDER – No. 19-mj-70176-LB 3

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

government’s plea offer of a felony with a sentence of probation, Mr. Fry’s rejection of that offer, 

and the government’s contemplated indictment of Mr. Fry on the pending charge and two 

additional charges involving misuse of a Social Security number and misuse of a government 

computer.11 A media report on February 13, 2019 — while the case was sealed — revealed that 

the United States Attorney’s office in the Northern District of California was leading the 

investigation and charges would be filed soon.12 Media reports on February 21, 2019 included the 

sealed complaint and the unexecuted summons, meaning, they came from government personnel 

with access to the sealed documents.13

Mr. Fry asked the government to (1) stop the leaks on the ground that they threaten Mr. Fry’s 

right to a fair trial by an impartial jury and (2) open an independent investigation into the leaks.14

He asked the undersigned, among other relief, to refer the issue to the Department of Justice to 

determine the source of the leaks.15 Given the immediate setting of a hearing, the government did 

not file any opposition and instead responded at the hearing.16 It characterized the leaks as 

inappropriate, declined to comment on whether it had referred the matter to the Department of 

Justice’s Office of the Inspector General (DOJ-OIG) on the ground that the process is internal, and 

said that it followed its procedures for referrals to DOJ-OIG in “appropriate circumstances.” 

ANALYSIS 

Mr. Fry asks for the following relief to address the leaks to the media: (1) a court-ordered 

referral to the Department of Justice for an independent investigation into the source of the leaks; 

(2) a stay of proceedings pending that investigation; (3) an order to show cause why the court 

should not hold the government in contempt for violating the court’s February 4, 2019 sealing 

 

11 Id. at 2. 

12 Id. 

13 Id. at 2–3. Mr. Fry’s counsel represented that the leaks did not come from the defense. 

14 Id.at 3–4. 

15 Id. at 4. 

16 See generally Docket. 

Case 3:19-mj-70176-LB Document 10 Filed 02/23/19 Page 3 of 6
ORDER – No. 19-mj-70176-LB 4

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

order; and (4) other relief, including a gag order.17 On this record, the court denies the motion 

without prejudice and also suggests remedial measures. 

First, the court does not order an investigation. 

Some of the leaks apparently involve a violation of the court’s sealing order because the press 

knew about sealed matters before the court unsealed the docket. A violation of the sealing order is 

not good and possibly has consequences for the person who leaked information. But it does not 

obviously have consequences for Mr. Fry because the sealing was to protect the government’s 

investigation temporarily until the initial appearance. There is no prejudice to Mr. Fry from 

disclosure of court documents that are now public record. 

More troubling is the leak about the plea negotiations and the plea offer, which arguably 

prejudices Mr. Fry’s right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. Also, the leak about the contemplated 

new charges (misuse of a Social Security number and misuse of a government computer) may 

violate Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e). Rule 6(e) prohibits “disclosure of matters 

occurring before the grand jury” by all participants in the grand-jury process — prosecutors, 

agents, grand jurors, interpreters, and court reporters — except witnesses themselves. The 

disclosure of the new charges arguably reveals the strategy or direction of the grand-jury 

investigation and the nature of the evidence before the grand jury. Also, “matters occurring before 

the grand jury” can include matters that have occurred, are occurring, or are likely to occur. In re 

Motions of Dow Jones & Co., 142 F.3d 496, 499–500 (D.D.C. 1998). 

That said, the court does not order the investigation. Generally, the Department of Justice’s 

policies do not create rights enforceable by defendants. In any event, the investigative and 

disciplinary process is an internal process, and a court order might implicate separation of powers 

issues.18 Moreover, the record needs to be developed before a conclusion can be made about any 

 

17 Id. at 4. 

18 At this juncture, the legal issues are not briefed. The court does not undertake independent research, 

especially because — as discussed below — there are court remedies to address prejudicial pretrial 

publicity and any violation of Rule 6(e). 

Case 3:19-mj-70176-LB Document 10 Filed 02/23/19 Page 4 of 6
ORDER – No. 19-mj-70176-LB 5

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

violation of Rule 6(e). And as discussed below, the trial judge can address the appropriate sanction 

for any violation. 

The court asked the government whether it nonetheless might tell defense counsel whether it is 

referring the case for investigation. The leaks apparently violated the court’s sealing order, 

implicate Mr. Fry’s right to a fair trial by an impartial jury, and might violate Rule 6(e). The 

government acknowledged that the leaks were inappropriate and said that it followed its policies. 

Reporting misconduct is mandatory. U.S. Department of Justice, Justice Manual § 1-4.300.19 If the 

government carries out its obligations pursuant to its policies, and the court is confident that it 

does, then why not say so. Transparency only improves confidence in decision-making. 

Second, for similar reasons, the court will not stay grand-jury proceedings pending the 

outcome of any investigation. Any prejudice to Mr. Fry’s right to a fair trial can be addressed by 

the trial judge ultimately assigned to the case. If there is a Rule 6(e) violation, presumably it will 

be disclosed. The trial judge can punish any violation as contempt of court and may impose other 

sanctions, depending on the nature of the violation. Fed. R. 6(e)(7); Bank of Novia Scotia v. United 

States, 487 U.S. 250, 254, 257 (1987) (discussing the remedies for errors in the grand-jury 

process). 

The court discussed possible mechanisms to remedy any prejudice to Mr. Fry’s right to a fair 

trial. The government said that the petit jury can be vetted regarding pretrial publicity. Similar 

processes might be employed with grand jurors. 

Third, on this record, the court denies the request for an order to show cause why the 

government should not be held in contempt for the leaks. For the reasons that support denying a 

stay, the trial judge is the better decision-maker to address harm. The court is confident that the 

government will take the appropriate remedial measures to stop inappropriate disclosures to the 

media. This denial is without prejudice to Mr. Fry’s raising the issue to (1) the trial judge or (2) 

the undersigned if something happens before the case is assigned to the trial judge. 

 

19 https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-1-4000-standards-conduct#1-4.300 (last checked February 23, 2019). 

Case 3:19-mj-70176-LB Document 10 Filed 02/23/19 Page 5 of 6
ORDER – No. 19-mj-70176-LB 6

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

Fourth, on this record, the court will not impose a gag order, again on the ground that the trial 

judge can address issues of adverse pretrial publicity and any violation of grand-jury secrecy and 

again without prejudice to Mr. Fry’s raising the issue if circumstances change before the case is 

assigned to a trial judge. 

CONCLUSION 

The court denies the emergency request without prejudice. This disposes of ECF No. 9. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 23, 2019 

______________________________________ 

LAUREL BEELER 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:19-mj-70176-LB Document 10 Filed 02/23/19 Page 6 of 6