IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMMON BUNDY, et al.,

Defendants,

GARY HUNT,

Respondent.

3:16-cr-00051-BR

 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

FINDING RESPONDENT 

GARY HUNT IN CIVIL 

CONTEMPT

BROWN, Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on the Court’s Order

(#1901) to Show Cause in which the Court directed Respondent Gary

Hunt to show cause why he should not be held in civil contempt

for his failure to comply with this Court’s Order (#1691),

Protective Order (#342), and the Supplement to Protective Order

(#1692).

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On January 6, 2017, the government filed a Motion (#1680) to

1 - FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FINDING RESPONDENT

GARY HUNT IN CIVIL CONTEMPT
Enforce Protective Order in which it alleged Respondent Gary

Hunt, a 71 year-old man residing in Los Molinas, California, was

publishing on a public internet website material that is

protected from public disclosure by the Court’s Protective Order

(#342) issued in this case on March 24, 2016. 

By its January 11, 2017, Order (#1691), the Court granted in

part the government’s Motion to Enforce Protective Order,

directed Respondent to remove all protected material from his

website, and enjoined Respondent from any further dissemination

of material covered by the Protective Order. That same day the

Court issued a Supplement to Protective Order (#1692) making

clear that “[a]ny individual or entity that obtains materials

protected by the Court’s Protective Order (#342) is prohibited

from disseminating those materials or any information derived

therefrom to any other individual or entity by any means.” The

Court directed the government to serve Respondent personally with

a copy of the Protective Order (#342), the Supplement to

Protective Order (#1692), and the Court’s Order (#1691). 

Pursuant to that directive, the government filed on January 12,

2017, a Certification of Service of Court Orders (#1697) in which

the government certified it had completed personal service on

Respondent.

On January 30, 2017, the government filed a Motion (#1788)

for Order to Show Cause together with the Affidavit (#1789) of

2 - FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FINDING RESPONDENT

GARY HUNT IN CIVIL CONTEMPT
FBI Special Agent Ronnie Walker in which the government sought an

order directing Respondent to appear before this Court to show

cause why he had not yet complied with the Court’s Order (#1691). 

At the Court’s direction the government filed a Supplemental

Memorandum (#1840) on February 7, 2017, in which it made a

preliminary showing that Respondent was subject to this Court’s

jurisdiction and that Respondent’s conduct was not protected by

the First Amendment. On February 16, 2017, the Court granted the

government’s Motion and issued an Order (#1901) to Show Cause

that required Respondent to appear at a show-cause hearing in

Portland, Oregon, on March 10, 2017. In that Order the Court

advised Respondent that he could either appear in person or by

telephone and provided him with instructions on how to contact

the Court to arrange to appear by telephone. Order (#1901) at 

1-2. In addition, the Court offered to assist Respondent with

appointment of pro bono counsel in the event that he wished to be

represented by counsel and lacked the financial means to retain

an attorney. Order (#1901) at 2.

Respondent, however, failed to appear at the show-cause

hearing and failed to contact the Court in response to the Order

(#1901) to Show Cause. As a result, on March 10, 2017, the Court

issued a warrant for Respondent’s arrest. See Order (#2017). 

Respondent was arrested near his home on March 30, 2017. A

Magistrate Judge in the United States District Court for the

3 - FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FINDING RESPONDENT

GARY HUNT IN CIVIL CONTEMPT
Eastern District of California conducted a first appearance,

detained Respondent, and directed the United States Marshal to

transport Respondent to the District of Oregon. After it

appeared to this Court that transport could not be conducted on a

sufficiently expedited basis, the Court conducted a telephone

hearing on April 6, 2017, in the District of Oregon at which

Respondent was represented on a interim basis by the Office of

the Federal Public Defender in the Eastern District of

California. At that hearing and at Respondent’s request, the

Court appointed separate Oregon counsel to represent Respondent.

During the April 6, 2017, hearing, it became clear that

Respondent had ignored the Court’s orders to appear because he

believed the Court did not have jurisdiction to compel his

appearance and that he had erroneously concluded compliance with

such orders or appearing in response to the Court’s orders would

waive those arguments. After the Court explained the process of

a “special appearance” to challenge jurisdiction without

submitting to jurisdiction, Respondent agreed to appear for court

proceedings on these matters in Portland, Oregon, if he was

released from custody in Sacramento.

For the reasons stated on the record at the conclusion of

the April 6, 2017, telephone hearing, the Court granted

Respondent’s Motion (#2055) for Revocation of Detention Order and

directed that Respondent be released from custody based on his

4 - FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FINDING RESPONDENT

GARY HUNT IN CIVIL CONTEMPT
personal assurance that he would appear at a hearing on May 9,

2017, at the United States District Court Courthouse in Portland,

Oregon, to address as a preliminary matter Respondent’s challenge

to the Court’s jurisdiction over him and the Court’s authority to

take action regarding his publication of material that is the

subject of the still-existing Protective Orders. 

With the assistance of court-appointed counsel, Respondent

filed a Memorandum of Law (#2077) in which he contended this

Court lacked personal jurisdiction over him in these civilcontempt proceedings, the government filed a Response (#2079) in

which it set forth its arguments in support of a finding that

this Court has personal jurisdiction over Respondent, and

Respondent filed a Reply Memorandum (#2085).

As he promised, Respondent appeared personally and with

court-appointed counsel at the May 9, 2017, hearing, and the

Court heard the parties’ oral arguments on the jurisdictional

issues. By its Order (#2095) issued May 11, 2017, the Court

concluded the jurisdictional questions were inextricably

intertwined with disputed factual issues underlying the merits of

the civil-contempt matter, and, therefore, the Court directed the

parties to brief their positions in anticipation of an

evidentiary haring to resolve these issues.

The government filed its Memorandum in Support of Civil

Contempt (#2126) on June 12, 2017; Respondent filed his

5 - FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FINDING RESPONDENT

GARY HUNT IN CIVIL CONTEMPT
Memorandum of Law in Opposition (#2173) on July 21, 2017; and the

government filed a Reply Memorandum (#2189) on August 4, 2017.

On August 23, 2017, Respondent again appeared personally and

with court-appointed counsel for an evidentiary hearing and oral

argument on the merits of these civil-contempt proceedings. 

The record for these show-cause issues is now complete, and,

based thereon, the Court issues the following Findings of Fact

and Conclusions of Law.

FINDINGS OF FACT

It is undisputed that the government must meet its burden of

proof for these civil-contempt proceedings by clear and

convincing evidence. Accordingly, based on the record regarding

this contempt matter and the Court’s knowledge derived from

presiding at the underlying criminal proceedings, the Court finds

the following facts by clear and convincing evidence:

1. Respondent is a 71 year-old resident of Los Molinas,

California, who, since 1993 and following the events at Waco,

Texas, has been writing publicly about matters that he views as

“federal government overreach,” including concerns that the

federal government has been “spying on our people like East

Germany and Russia.” Although his writings have taken various

forms, since 2009 Respondent has maintained a website with a blog

entitled “Outpost of Freedom” that contains his writings. 

6 - FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FINDING RESPONDENT

GARY HUNT IN CIVIL CONTEMPT
2. In the months before the occupation of the Malheur

National Wildlife Refuge (MNWR), Respondent was a member of the

Operation Mutual Defense Advisory Board together with, among

others, Ryan Payne and Jon Ritzheimer, who were two of the

leaders of the occupation of the MNWR and two of the 26

Defendants in this criminal case. This Board, including

Respondent, was focused on deciding whether and how to take

action to prevent the compelled return of Dwight and Steven

Hammond to federal prison to serve the remainder of their

mandatory-minimum sentences for arson convictions after the

government’s successful appeals of lesser sentences. See Gov’t

Ex. 3 at 5.

3. In the course of this extended multi-count criminal

case against the 26 Defendants and pursuant to this Court’s

Protective Order (#342), the government provided to Defendants as

part of discovery redacted versions of confidential human source

(CHS) reports compiled by FBI agents investigating the MNWR

occupation. The government also inadvertently provided

Defendants with un-redacted versions of some of the CHS reports.

4. The Court’s Protective Order (#342) explicitly

prohibited dissemination of the CHS reports (and other discovery

materials not at issue in these contempt proceedings) to anyone

who was not a named party, an attorney for a named party, or a

member of a named party’s legal team. In addition, each of the

7 - FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FINDING RESPONDENT

GARY HUNT IN CIVIL CONTEMPT
CHS reports produced to Defendants in discovery was stamped with

markings that stated “Dissemination Limited by Court Order” and

stamped with Bates numbers that the government used to track and

to reference discovery.

5. Respondent is not and was not a person entitled to

receive discovery under the terms of the Court’s Protective Order

(#342). Nevertheless, in late summer or fall 2016 when the Court

and the parties to this criminal case were preparing for and then

trying the first jury trial that began on September 7, 2016,

Respondent received in his mailbox at his California residence an

envelope with a thumb drive inside and a note warning him not to

share “this information” and to “get rid” of the drive. When

Respondent opened the thumb drive, he saw it contained numerous

CHS reports stamped with markings that stated “Dissemination

Limited by Court Order” and bearing specified Bates numbers. 

Respondent, therefore, was immediately aware there was a Court

Order that prohibited both his receipt of and ultimate

dissemination of the CHS reports.

6. There is not any basis to find (and, in addition, it is

highly improbable) that the thumb drive was provided to

Respondent by anyone associated with the prosecution team. The

only other source for the information on that thumb drive is a

Defendant or someone serving on a Defendant’s legal team. Under

these circumstances the Court finds at least one of the 26

8 - FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FINDING RESPONDENT

GARY HUNT IN CIVIL CONTEMPT
Defendants and/or at least one person on a Defendant’s legal team

intentionally provided the CHS reports to Respondent either

directly or indirectly through a third person. 

7. Moreover, it is undisputed that Respondent had a

longstanding public blog critical of the federal government and,

in particular, critical of what he perceived to be the

government’s surveillance of Americans, and that Respondent was

already publicly associated with at least two Defendants for the

purpose of assisting Dwight and Steven Hammond even though

Respondent was not himself a defendant in this case. In light of

these facts the Court finds one of the purposes of providing

these reports to Respondent was for Respondent to publish them

even though a Defendant or Defendant’s representative was

explicitly prohibited from doing so and for Respondent thereby to

attempt to aid Defendants in identifying one or more of the CHS

individuals so they could be called as witnesses at the trial set

to begin February 14, 2017. 

8. Respondent testified he did not know the source of

these CHS reports. Although the Court is skeptical that this

statement is true, the Court, nevertheless, does not find it

necessary to determine whether Respondent actually knew the

identity of the person(s) who left the thumb drive in his

mailbox. It is sufficient for these proceedings that the Court

finds Respondent knew the protected information on the thumb

9 - FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FINDING RESPONDENT

GARY HUNT IN CIVIL CONTEMPT
drive originated with at least one Defendant and/or at least one

member of a defense team.

9. The Court emphasizes the Protective Order (#342)

prohibited any dissemination of the materials provided to

Respondent, including, in particular, any content from the CHS

reports. Nevertheless, as early as November 15, 2016, which is

after the acquittals of seven Defendants in the first jury trial,

and continuing through January 2017, which immediately preceded

the beginning of the second jury trial, Respondent extensively

quoted and “cut-and-pasted” from the CHS reports in several posts

on his internet blog. Respondent’s published excerpts from the

CHS reports varied in length from a few sentences to several

paragraphs.

10. With respect to Respondent’s intended purpose(s) in

posting the materials from the CHS reports, the Court notes the

content that Respondent published is consistent with his

longstanding interest in writing about matters that Respondent

views as “government overreach” in general and law enforcement’s

use of informants in particular. Indeed, the Court finds

Respondent wanted to “out” the CHSs consistent with that

interest.

11. The Court, however, is not persuaded that was

Respondent’s only purpose in publishing this protected

information. In particular, the Court finds Respondent also

10 - FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FINDING RESPONDENT

GARY HUNT IN CIVIL CONTEMPT
specifically intended to assist the defense in the second trial

by publishing the CHS reports and trying to identify the CHSs. 

The Court reaches this conclusion notwithstanding Respondent’s

denial of such an intent and his argument that any assistance

Defendants may actually have received from his publication of the

CHS reports was an unintended consequence of his intended

discussion of “government overreach.” The Court finds this

distinction is, at best, a post hoc rationalization to avoid

accountability in this matter.

12. Instead, as explained in further detail below,

Respondent’s previous association with at least two Defendants on

issues inextricably intertwined with the merits of the criminal

case, his ongoing coordination with individuals who were involved

in the occupation of the MNWR even after the occupation ended,

his vehement disagreement with the Court’s Order (#1453) in

October 2016 regarding unredacted CHS reports, and his recorded

statements to Schuyler Barbeau all support the Court’s finding

that Respondent published information in violation of the

Protective Order to assist the Defendants who were explicitly

subject to the Order.

13. Concerning his efforts to identify one particular

alleged CHS, Respondent stated in his November 25, 2016, blog

post:

When I obtained access to the “CHS Reporting Documents”

11 - FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FINDING RESPONDENT

GARY HUNT IN CIVIL CONTEMPT
(form 1023), it was simply a matter of matching dates,

statement [sic], etc., to determine which of those

reports were from [CHS]. This required communication

with those who were at the Refuge, though not still in

custody, to verify certain things that became key to

unlocking the necessary proof of [CHS]’s role as an

informant.

Gov’t Ex. 4 at 3. Thus, in his effort to identify CHSs publicly

after he received the reports, Respondent coordinated with

individuals who occupied the MNWR and who, based on Respondent’s

use of the phrase “though not still in custody,” appear to have

been Defendants in this case. 

14. Moreover, it is undisputed that Respondent disagreed

vehemently with this Court’s October 18, 2016, Order (#1453) in

which, after the parties made their positions clear on the record

and the Court conducted an in camera review, the Court declined

to order the government to disclose to Defendants in the first

trial the unredacted versions of the CHS reports. As was noted

on the record at the time of that Order, the Court concluded the

redacted versions of the reports disclosed all potentially

exculpatory information that the Court could identify on the

existing record. See Gov’t Ex. 1 at 2-3; Gov’t Ex. 2 at 2-3. 

Nevertheless, although it appears Respondent may to some extent

have misinterpreted the meaning of the Court’s October 18, 2016,

Order and the circumstances that led to that Order, it is clear

from his writings that he definitely intended to circumvent that

Order by attempting to identify the CHSs through the publication

12 - FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FINDING RESPONDENT

GARY HUNT IN CIVIL CONTEMPT
of the CHS reports in violation of the Protective Order and

thereby to identify the CHSs so that Defendants could call them

as witnesses at the second trial. The Court notes its orders and

rulings in this case did not prohibit any party from calling CHSs

as witnesses at trial,1 but any attempt to identify CHSs by

publicizing the CHS reports was clearly prohibited by the

Protective Order.

15. As established at the August 23, 2017, evidentiary

hearing, during a recorded telephone call on November 18, 2016,

with Schuyler Barbeau, who was in jail at the time on somewhat

related charges, Respondent stated: “Right now I’m focused on

exposing these informants because that’s going to help the

February trial.” The Court notes Respondent does not dispute

the call took place nor that he made this statement. Instead

Respondent testified he made the statement to Barbeau in an

effort to lift Barbeau’s spirits, but Respondent maintains the

statement did not reflect his actual intentions in publishing the

protected CHS reports. The Court finds Respondent’s explanation

is not credible and, instead, Respondent’s statement to Barbeau

was an accurate reflection of one of his purposes in publishing

1 Indeed, Defendants called two CHSs as witnesses in the

trial that began September 7, 2016, and one CHS as a witness in

the trial that began February 14, 2017. The Court assumes

Defendants, their counsel, and legal teams identified those

witnesses without any help from Respondent and consistent with

the Court’s orders.

13 - FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FINDING RESPONDENT

GARY HUNT IN CIVIL CONTEMPT
the CHS reports.

16. FBI Special Agent Matthew Catalano provided Respondent

with a copy of the Protective Order on January 5, 2017, together

with a cease-and-desist letter from the United States Attorney’s

Office for the District of Oregon.

17. Notwithstanding being served with court orders as noted

above, Respondent has not removed any of the CHS reports from his

website nor taken down any of the blog posts that contain

excerpts of the CHS reports.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

I. Standards

“A party moving for civil contempt must prove that the

non-moving party has violated a court order by clear and

convincing evidence.” Ahearn ex. rel. Nat’l Labor Relations Bd.

v. Int’l Longshore & Warehouse Union, 721 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th

Cir. 2013). See also In re SK Foods, L.P., Nos. 15-16806, 15-

16807, 2017 WL 2992237, at *1 (9th Cir. Jul. 14, 2017)(quoting

FTC v. Affordable Media, LLC, 179 F.3d 1228, 1239 (9th Cir.

1999)(“‘The standard for finding a party in civil contempt is

well settled: The moving party has the burden of showing by

clear and convincing evidence that the contemnors violated a

specific and definite order of the court. The burden then shifts

to the contemnors to demonstrate why they were unable to

14 - FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FINDING RESPONDENT

GARY HUNT IN CIVIL CONTEMPT
comply.’”).

Ordinarily civil-contempt proceedings are brought against a

litigant who violates a court order. A nonparty, however, “may

also be held liable for knowingly aiding and abetting another to

violate a court order.” Inst. of Cetacean Research v. Sea

Shepherd Conservation Soc’y, 774 F.3d 935, 945 (9th Cir. 2014). 

This principle also applies to nonparties to the original

action. “‘[T]o be held liable in contempt, it is necessary that

a non-party respondent must either abet the defendant [in

violating the court’s order] or be legally identified with him,’

. . . and that the non-party have notice of the order.” Peterson

v. Highland Music, Inc., 140 F.3d 1313, 1324 (9th Cir. 1998)

(quoting NLRB v. Sequoia Dist. Council of Carpenters, 568 F.2d

628, 633 (9th Cir. 1977)). Accordingly, in order to find a

nonparty in civil contempt for aiding and abetting a party to a

court order in the violation of such an order, the court must

find (1) the “nonparty [knew] of the judicial decree, and

nonetheless act[ed] in defiance of it” and (2) “the challenged

action [was] taken for the benefit of, or to assist, a party

subject to the decree.” Goya Foods, Inc. v. Wallack Mgmt. Co.,

290 F.3d 63, 75 (1st Cir. 2002). Moreover, a mistaken assessment

of the applicability of a court’s order is not a defense to civil

contempt for violating that order. Id. (“When a legitimate

question exists as to the scope or effectiveness of a court’s

15 - FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FINDING RESPONDENT

GARY HUNT IN CIVIL CONTEMPT
order, those who know of the decree, yet act unilaterally, assume

the risk of mistaken judgments.”). 

As noted in the Court’s May 11, 2017, Order (#2095), the

test for whether this Court has jurisdiction over Respondent in

this civil-contempt action is the same as the test for

determining whether Respondent aided and abetted a party to this

action in the violation of the Court’s Protective Order. In

other words, if there is clear and convincing evidence that

Respondent aided and abetted a party to this matter in the

violation of the Court’s Protective Order, personal jurisdiction

over Respondent exists in this District. See Reebok Int’l Ltd.

v. McLaughlin, 49 F.3d 1387, 1391 (9th Cir. 1995). See also

Waffenschmidt v. MacKay, 763 F.2d 711, 714 (5th Cir. 1985). 

II. Conclusions of Law and Analysis

For the reasons that follow, the Court concludes Respondent

aided and abetted at least one Defendant in the violation of the

Court’s Protective Order (#342) based on the above Findings of

Fact and reasonable inferences arising from those facts. 

As noted, to support the conclusion that Respondent aided

and abetted a Defendant in the violation of the Protective Order,

the Court must find (1) the “nonparty [knew] of the judicial

decree, and nonetheless act[ed] in defiance of it” and (2) “the

challenged action [was] taken for the benefit of, or to assist, a

party subject to the decree.” Goya Foods, 290 F.3d at 75. 

16 - FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FINDING RESPONDENT

GARY HUNT IN CIVIL CONTEMPT
As noted in the Court’s Findings of Fact, Respondent had

notice that the Protective Order prohibited the dissemination of

the CHS reports at least by the time Respondent received the

reports in late summer or fall 2016. Moreover, Respondent had

notice of the entirety of the Protective Order no later than

January 5, 2017, when Special Agent Catalano served him with a

copy of that Order. Nonetheless, Respondent knowingly

disseminated the contents of the CHS reports when he repeatedly

posted the substance of those reports on his website.

In addition, the Court has found Respondent publicly posted

the substance of the CHS reports with the specific intent of

assisting the defense and, in particular, the Defendants who were

set to begin trial in February 2017. 

When Respondent set out to identify and to publicize the

court-protected identities of CHSs so that he could help

Defendants in the February 2017 trial call those CHSs as trial

witnesses, the Court concludes Respondent’s actions exceeded any

First Amendment privilege protecting a journalist or commentator

and crossed over into being a voluntary and active participant in

the defense.

On this record, therefore, the Court concludes Respondent

intentionally aided and abetted at least one Defendant and/or a

member of a defense team in the violation of the Court’s

Protective Order (#342). 

17 - FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FINDING RESPONDENT

GARY HUNT IN CIVIL CONTEMPT
To the extent that Respondent alleges he did not know he

could be subject to the Protective Order as an aider-and-abettor,

that is not a defense in this civil-contempt proceeding. See

Goya Foods, 290 F.3d at 75 (“When a legitimate question exists as

to the scope or effectiveness of a court’s order, those who know

of the decree, yet act unilaterally, assume the risk of mistaken

judgments.”). In any event, the Court notes Respondent neither

sought relief from nor clarification of the Protective Order

despite the Court’s offers to permit Respondent to make a

telephonic or written presentation and to provide Respondent with

counsel. Accordingly, because the Court concludes Respondent

aided and abetted at least one party to the Protective Order

(#342) in the violation thereof, it follows that this Court has

personal jurisdiction over Respondent in this civil-contempt

proceeding. See Reebok Int’l Ltd., 49 F.3d at 1391. 

Respondent, nonetheless, contends this Court’s Protective

Order (#342) and Supplement to the Protective Order (#1692)

constitute impermissible prior restraints on free speech and,

therefore, are invalid. As an initial matter, the Court need not

rely on the Supplement to the Protective Order (#1692) in these

civil-contempt proceedings, and, therefore, the Court need not

determine whether Respondent’s violation of the Supplement’s

broader prohibition on third-party dissemination of protected

discovery materials is a basis to hold Respondent in contempt.

18 - FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FINDING RESPONDENT

GARY HUNT IN CIVIL CONTEMPT
With respect to the initial Protective Order (#342), the

Court concludes that Order does not amount to a prior restraint

on Respondent’s free speech in violation of the First Amendment. 

The Supreme Court has made clear that “an order prohibiting

dissemination of discovered information before trial is not the

kind of classic prior restraint that requires exacting First

Amendment scrutiny.” Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S.

20, 33 (1984). The Court reasoned: “[S]uch a protective order

prevents a party from disseminating only that information

obtained through use of the discovery process,” and, therefore,

“the party may disseminate the identical information covered by

the protective order as long as the information is gained through

means independent of the court’s processes.” Id. at 34. See

also Ground Zero Ctr. for Non-Violent Action v. United States

Dep’t of Navy, 860 F.3d 1244, 1258 (9th Cir. 2017)(“[C]ourts have

significant discretion to constrain litigants from disseminating

information obtained through litigation.”). In Ground Zero the

Ninth Circuit noted “[p]rotective orders safeguard the interests

of litigants who have no choice but to turn over sensitive

information to the other party.” Id. at 1259. The Ninth Circuit

pointed out the Seattle Times Court “emphasized that restrictions

on litigants’ use of discovery documents are permissible because

‘restraints placed on discovered, but not yet admitted,

information are not a restriction on a traditionally public

19 - FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FINDING RESPONDENT

GARY HUNT IN CIVIL CONTEMPT
source of information.’” Id. (citations omitted).

This rationale from Seattle Times and Ground Zero applies

with at least equal force to the Protective Order (#342) in this

criminal case. As with civil discovery, information provided to

litigants in criminal discovery but not admitted at trial is not

a “traditionally public source of information.” See id.

Moreover, the public interest in enforcement of criminal laws

together with criminal defendants’ due-process rights to

discovery relevant to their defense weigh heavily in favor of

permitting protective orders to limit the public dissemination of

sensitive discovery information, while, at the same time,

granting criminal defendants access to information relevant to

their defense. In light of the government’s substantial interest

in protecting the identities of CHSs from public disclosure, such

protection is clearly appropriate for CHS reports. See United

States v. Napier, 436 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 2006)(noting the

government’s important “interest in keeping confidential the

identity of an informant”). Moreover, as in Seattle Times, the

Protective Order in this case did not prohibit any party or any

other person from disseminating information that was obtained

outside of the discovery process. See Seattle Times, 467 U.S. at

33. Finally, because the Court concludes Respondent knowingly

aided and abetted a party in the violation of the Protective

Order, Respondent’s status as a nonparty does not render the

20 - FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FINDING RESPONDENT

GARY HUNT IN CIVIL CONTEMPT
Protective Order (#342) invalid or preclude its enforcement

against Respondent. 

On this record, therefore, the Court concludes the

Protective Order (#342) is valid and that Respondent knowingly

aided and abetted a Defendant and/or a member of a defense team

in the violation of the Protective Order. Accordingly, the Court

finds Respondent in civil contempt for that conduct.

SANCTION

At the August 23, 2017, evidentiary hearing Respondent

assured the Court while under oath that he would comply with the

Court’s final Order in this civil-contempt proceeding. In light

of Respondent's assurance, the fact that Respondent has already

spent one week in custody, and Respondent's compliance with the

Court’s orders to appear since his release from custody, the

Court concludes Respondent should be given an additional, but

final, opportunity to comply with this Court’s Order to remove

the materials posted in violation of the Court’s Protective Order

before the Court employs other coercive sanctions.

The Court, therefore, orders Respondent to take the

following steps no later than Noon, Wednesday, September 13,

2017:

21 - FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FINDING RESPONDENT

GARY HUNT IN CIVIL CONTEMPT
1. The Court directs Respondent to remove all excerpts and

references to the substance of the CHS reports from his website.

2. The Court directs Respondent to destroy all remaining

copies of the CHS reports that he retains in either physical or

electronic form subject to the single exception below.

3. The Court directs Respondent to certify his compliance

with Steps 1 and 2 with a statement under oath filed in the

record of this matter by the same deadline.

4. If, notwithstanding Respondent’s assurances to the

Court of his intent to comply with this Order, Respondent intends

to appeal this Order, Respondent must, nevertheless, timely

comply with Steps 1, 2 and 3. He may, however, also provide a

single copy of the CHS reports to his counsel to preserve pending

appeal. Unless and until an appellate court issues an order to

the contrary, however, counsel may not return that copy of the

CHS reports to Respondent or otherwise disseminate any of the

contents of those reports. If this Order is affirmed after

Respondent exhausts all appeals or if Respondent elects not to

pursue an appeal, counsel must promptly destroy the single

retained copy of the CHS reports.

If Respondent fails to comply timely with this Order, the

Court will consider the government’s request for additional 

22 - FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FINDING RESPONDENT

GARY HUNT IN CIVIL CONTEMPT
coercive sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of September, 2017.

/s/ Anna J. Brown

 

ANNA J. BROWN

United States Senior District Judge

23 - FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FINDING RESPONDENT

GARY HUNT IN CIVIL CONTEMPT