IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMMON BUNDY, JON RITZHEIMER,

JOSEPH O’SHAUGHNESSY, RYAN

PAYNE, RYAN BUNDY, BRIAN

CAVALIER, SHAWNA COX, PETER

SANTILLI, JASON PATRICK,

DUANE LEO EHMER, DYLAN 

ANDERSON, SEAN ANDERSON,

DAVID LEE FRY, JEFF WAYNE

BANTA, SANDRA LYNN ANDERSON,

KENNETH MEDENBACH, BLAINE

COOPER, WESLEY KJAR, COREY

LEQUIEU, NEIL WAMPLER, JASON

CHARLES BLOMGREN, DARRYL

WILLIAM THORN, GEOFFREY

STANEK, TRAVIS COX, ERIC LEE

FLORES, and JAKE RYAN,

Defendants.

3:16-cr-00051-BR

 

ORDER 

BROWN, Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Ammon

Bundy’s Memorandum (#365) in Opposition to Signed Protective

1 - ORDER
Order and Motion to Modify in which Ammon Bundy objects to the

Court’s entry of Protective Order (#342) on March 24, 2016. 

Defendant Ryan Bundy joins Ammon Bundy’s objections.

In the Protective Order, which was agreed to by the

government and all Defendants except Ammon Bundy,1 the Court

ordered that defense counsel could provide copies of discovery

only to (1) Defendants in this case, (2) “[p]ersons employed by

the attorney of record who are necessary to assist counsel of

record in preparation for trial or other proceedings in this

case,” and (3) “[p]ersons who defense counsel deems necessary to

further legitimate investigation and preparation of this case.”

Protective Order (#342) at 1. The Protective Order applies to

(1) “[s]tatements by witnesses and defendants to government

officials,” (2) sealed documents, and (3) “[e]vidence received

from searches of electronic media.” Id. at 2. In the event any

defense counsel believes an exception should be made to the

Protective Order, the Order directs defense counsel to confer

with the government before “seeking guidance from this Court.” 

Id.

The Court entered the Protective Order after finding by

Order (#285) issued March 9, 2016, that “the government has

1

 Although Ryan Bundy initially agreed to the Protective

Order, Ammon Bundy indicated in his “Proposed Response to

Government’s Response to Defendant Ammon Bundy’s Motion to Modify

Protective Order” (#415-1) filed April 15, 2016, that Ryan Bundy

joined in the objections. 

2 - ORDER
demonstrated there is risk of harm and intimidation to some

witnesses or other individuals referenced in discovery.” In

addition, the Court determined entering a protective order that

automatically applied to the specified classes of discovery while

providing a procedure by which exceptions could be made served

the important interest in this case of allowing the government to

produce its voluminous discovery without undue delay so this case

could proceed to trial as soon as possible.

In their objections Ammon and Ryan Bundy (referred to

collectively as the Bundys) contend the Protective Order is

unnecessary because the government has not demonstrated there is

any risk of harm or intimidation to witnesses or other persons

named in the government’s discovery and the Bundys have a need to

disseminate discovery materials covered by the Protective Order

to the public in order to permit them to “crowdsource”

Defendants’ investigation. In place of the Protective Order, the

Bundys request the Court to require the government to make a

specific showing of necessity as to each piece of evidence that

allegedly should be protected from public dissemination.

After reviewing the pleadings (including the ex parte filing

under seal of Ammon Bundy’s counsel (#427)), the Court adheres to

its finding that a risk of harm and/or intimidation to witnesses

or other persons named in the government’s discovery exists in

this case. In addition to the record that the government made in

3 - ORDER
support of the Protective Order, the Court notes judges of the

court affiliated with this case have been inundated with

communications from non-parties who have, in some cases, conveyed

harassing and threatening messages and, in any event, have

clearly attempted to influence these proceedings. Although the

Court is able to shield itself from such messages, the risk of

exposing potential witnesses to such contacts would create an

undue risk of prejudice to the ends of justice, the government,

and at least some Defendants. 

In addition, the Bundys have not demonstrated the

“crowdsourcing” of their investigation is necessary or that their

investigation cannot be completed using the traditional

investigatory methods that the Protective Order allows and, in

fact, seeks to protect. The Court emphasizes the Protective

Order does not prohibit the Bundys from “crowdsourcing” their own

investigative efforts in compliance with the Protective Order. 

The Protective Order merely precludes public dissemination of

specified discovery produced by the government. Accordingly, the

Court concludes the Bundys’ assertion that public dissemination

of discovery materials is necessary to permit the “crowdsourcing”

of their investigation does not overcome the need to protect

potential witnesses from undue risk of harm and/or intimidation.

Finally, the Court notes the Bundys’ proposed method of

requiring the government to make a specific showing of necessity

4 - ORDER
as to each document that it seeks to protect is wholly

impractical. The Court is already requiring the government to

produce an extraordinarily large amount of discovery in a

relatively short period. Requiring the government also to make a

specific showing of necessity as to each document that it deems

necessary to protect would substantially slow the rate at which

the government could process and produce discovery and likely

would preclude this Court from ensuring the parties are ready to

begin trial on September 7, 2016, a date set to ensure the

speedy-trial rights of all Defendants.

For these reasons, the Court OVERRULES the objections of

Defendants Ammon and Ryan Bundy contained in Ammon Bundy’s

Memorandum (#365) in Opposition to Signed Protective Order and

Motion to Modify and ADHERES to the Protective Order (#342)

issued March 24, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 21st day of April, 2016.

/s/ Anna J. Brown

 

ANNA J. BROWN

United States District Judge

5 - ORDER