1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-mj-2228-JJO

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

FELIPE MONCALEANO BOTERO, 

 Defendant.

 /

UNITED STATES’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE 

ORDER REGULATING DISCLOSURE OF DISCOVERY INFORMATION

The United States of America respectfully moves for a Protective Order in the 

above-captioned case, pursuant to Rule 16(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal 

Procedure, for appropriate protections against widespread dissemination of discovery 

materials and sensitive information they contain. This sensitive information includes 

records containing personal information of third parties, such as birth dates and 

social security numbers. It also includes records which identify third-party bank 

accounts and financial information. The United States accordingly seeks, without 

objection from the defense, protections that will not impede the defendant’s ability to 

prepare a defense, but which will protect against improper dissemination or use of 

the sensitive information. Therefore, the United States respectfully submits that the 

equities favor this Court placing reasonable limitations on the use of sensitive 

information in discovery materials. 

BACKGROUND

Case 1:20-cr-20175-JEM Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2020 Page 1 of 7
2

On February 12, 2020, the United States filed a Complaint alleging that the

defendant engaged in a conspiracy to commit money laundering in violation of Title 

18, United States Code, Section 1956(h). Discovery in this matter will include 

communications relating to payments, records relating the use of shell corporations 

and international bank accounts used to launder bribery payments made to

Ecuadorian officials by the defendant and others. Financial and other records which 

the United States will produce in discovery include sensitive account or identification 

information, as well as other sensitive information. In an attempt to protect the 

sensitive information in discovery materials, the United States proposes the following 

restrictions be placed on the disclosure and use of the discovery materials in this case:

1. Counsel of record for the defendant shall hold the discovery materials in 

strict confidence, disclosing this information to the defendant, office staff, 

investigators, and witnesses (including any experts) only to the extent he or she 

believes is necessary to assist in the defense of this matter.

2. Counsel of record for the defendant shall advise any person to whom the 

discovery materials are disclosed that, pursuant to the attached Protective Order, the 

information must be held in strict confidence and the recipient may not further 

disclose or disseminate the information.

3. Counsel of record for the defendant shall obtain a certification from each 

person to whom the discovery materials are disclosed, in which the recipient (a) 

acknowledges the restrictions set forth in the Protective Order, and (b) agrees that 

he/she will not disclose or disseminate the information without the express consent 

Case 1:20-cr-20175-JEM Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2020 Page 2 of 7
3

of defense counsel. Counsel shall keep a copy of each certification to identify the 

individuals who received the discovery materials and the date on which such 

information was first disclosed.1

4. At the conclusion of the above-captioned case, counsel of record for the 

defendant shall either destroy the discovery materials or return them to the United 

States.

ANALYSIS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW

A trial court “can and should, where appropriate, place a defendant and his 

counsel under enforceable orders against unwarranted disclosure of the material 

which they may be entitled to inspect.” Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 185 

(1969). Courts have long recognized that protective orders are appropriate where 

disclosure will impact victims or innocent third parties. See, e.g., United States v. 

Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050-51 (2d Cir. 1995) (“The privacy interests of third parties 

. . . should weigh heavily in a court’s balancing equation.”) (Citations omitted). In 

fact, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1) permits a court to deny, restrict, or 

defer pre-trial discovery when a party can demonstrate the need for these types of 

actions. See Fed R. Crim. P. 16(d)(1). The government does not seek to delay, deny, 

or restrict the disclosure of information which Rule 16 or the Standing Discovery 

Order requires. See e.g, United States v. Fischel, 686 F.2d 1082, 1090 (5th Cir. 1982) 

(stating that “[d]iscovery in criminal cases is narrowly limited [and] makes no 

provision for the production of the names and addresses of witnesses”). Instead, the 

 1 A proposed certification is attached as an exhibit hereto.

Case 1:20-cr-20175-JEM Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2020 Page 3 of 7
4

government only seeks to facilitate discovery, while protecting against the improper 

disclosure or use of an individual’s identification information. The proposed 

Protective Order, attached as an exhibit hereto, would have no effect on the 

defendant’s ability to prepare defenses and would protect sensitive information 

concerning third parties. Indeed, in some jurisdictions, similar provisions are 

standard in all cases. See, e.g., In Re Bragg, 2012 WL 566958, at *4 (W.D.Va. 2012) 

(finding criminal defense attorney in contempt of court for failing to abide by standard 

discovery order which prohibited the removal of any discoverable material from the 

office of defense counsel unless kept in the personal possession of defense counsel at 

all times, and which prohibited a defendant’s possession of discoverable material 

unless in the presence of defense counsel). 

It is appropriate for any protective order to admonish the parties that the 

purpose of discovery is trial preparation and that sensitive information provided in 

discovery is to be used only for that purpose. See United States v. Gangi, No. 97 CR 

1215(DC), 1998 WL 226196 at *4 (S.D.N.Y. May 4, 1998) (ordering that information 

disclosed under protective order “[s]hall be used only by defendants and their counsel 

solely for purposes of this action”); United States v. Salemme, 978 F. Supp. 386, 390 

(D. Mass. 1997) (requiring government to make certain disclosures and ordering that 

those disclosures be used “solely for the purpose of litigating matters in this case”); 

see generally United States v. Anderson, 799 F.2d 1438, 1441 (11th Cir. 1986) 

(“Discovery, whether civil or criminal, is essentially a private process because the 

litigants and the courts assume that the sole purpose of discovery is to assist trial 

Case 1:20-cr-20175-JEM Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2020 Page 4 of 7
5

preparation. That is why parties regularly agree, and courts often order, that 

discovery information will remain private.”). 

The government’s proposed order, or one materially similar thereto, has been 

entered in other fraud matters in the Southern District of Florida to ensure the 

integrity of sensitive information disclosed in discovery. See, e.g., United States v. 

Reyes Lopez, Case No. 17-cr-20747-WILLIAMS (DE 27) (S.D. Fla. Nov. 17, 2017);

United States v. Jean Chauvel, et al., No. 15-20289-CR-COHN (DE 21, 59) (S.D. Fla. 

June 16, 2015 and January 6, 2016); United States v. Venereo, et al., Case No. 14-

20566-CR-ALTONAGA, (DE 30) (S.D. Fla. Aug. 18, 2014); United States v. 

Hernandez, Case No. 13-20520-CR-GRAHAM (DE 17) (S.D. Fl. July 31, 2013); United 

States v. Leitman, Case No. 10-20883-CR-GRAHAM (DE 29) (S.D. Fla. January 10, 

2011); United States v. DeSousa, et al., Case No. 10-20524-CR-GOLD (DE 25) (S.D. 

Fla. August 12, 2010); United States v. Vasquez, et al., Case No. 10-20707-CRALTONAGA (DE 35) (S.D. Fla. November 1, 2010); United States v. Figueroa, et al., 

Case No. 09-20610-CR-LENARD (DE 105) (S.D. Fla. October 7, 2009). 

On March 19, 2020, the undersigned conferred with Fernando Tamayo, Esq.,

who is counsel of record for the defendant and who advised that there is no objection 

to entry of the proposed Protective Order.

WHEREFORE, the United States of America respectfully moves this Court to 

issue the proposed Protective Order.

Respectfully submitted,

Case 1:20-cr-20175-JEM Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2020 Page 5 of 7
6

ROBERT ZINK

CHIEF, FRAUD SECTION

By: s/ Katherine Raut 

Katherine Raut

Court I.D. No. A5502213

Alexander Kramer

La’Nese Clarke

Trial Attorneys 

Department of Justice

1400 New York Ave. N.W.

Telephone: (202) 616-2577

katherine.raut@usdoj.gov

alexander.kramer@usdoj.gov

lanese.clarke@usdoj.gov

Case 1:20-cr-20175-JEM Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2020 Page 6 of 7
7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served by 

CM/ECF.

s/ Katherine Raut 

KATHERINE RAUT

TRIAL ATTORNEY

Case 1:20-cr-20175-JEM Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2020 Page 7 of 7