BILLY J. WILLIAMS, OSB #901366 

United States Attorney 

District of Oregon 

ETHAN D. KNIGHT, OSB #992984 

GEOFFREY A. BARROW 

CRAIG J. GABRIEL, OSB #012571 

Assistant United States Attorneys 

ethan.knight@usdoj.gov

geoffrey.barrow@usdoj.gov 

craig.gabriel@usdoj.gov

1000 SW Third Ave., Suite 600 

Portland, OR 97204-2902 

Telephone: (503) 727-1000 

Attorneys for United States of America 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 v. 

AMMON BUNDY, 

 Defendant.

3:16-CR-00051-BR-01

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO 

DEFENDANT AMMON BUNDY’S 

MOTION TO MODIFY 

PROTECTIVE ORDER

 The United States of America, by Billy J. Williams, United States Attorney for the 

District of Oregon, and through Ethan D. Knight, Geoffrey A. Barrow, and Craig J. Gabriel, 

Assistant United States Attorneys, hereby responds to defendant Ammon Bundy’s Memorandum 

in Opposition to Signed Protective Order and Motion to Modify (ECF No. 365). The 

government believes that the current Protective Order is appropriate and recommends that the 

Motion to Modify should be denied. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 407 Filed 04/13/16 Page 1 of 3
Government’s Response to Defendant Ammon Bundy’s Motion to Modify 

Protective Order 

Page 2

I. Argument 

 Through extensive negotiations, the government and numerous defendants and defense 

counsel agreed to the existing Protective Order. Ammon Bundy alone opposes the current 

Protective Order. To date, none of the other defendants, defense counsel, or stand-by counsel 

has filed a motion with the Court that the current Protective Order has limited their investigation. 

Further, the current Protective Order states that “if there is specific discovery material that 

defense counsel believes should be an exception to this Protective Order, the parties shall confer 

before seeking guidance from this Court.” No defendant has yet approached the government 

seeking an exception to the Protective Order. Additionally, the current Protective Order 

contemplates that the parties will “confer regarding the efficacy of this Protective Order” and 

address outstanding issues at the status conference on June 15, 2016. 

 Defendant Ammon Bundy’s Proposed Protective Order would create a cumbersome 

process in which, for each and every discovery production, (1) the government would designate 

documents “confidential,” (2) the government would file a motion under seal with the Court, 

attaching the so-called confidential documents, (3) the Court would rule on whether the 

documents were, in fact, confidential, and (4) defendants could subsequently move the Court for 

a determination that the confidentiality designation be removed. 

 In a large-scale case such as this, with multiple and voluminous discovery productions, 

defendant Ammon Bundy’s proposal is impractical. The process proposed by defendant 

Ammon Bundy would slow down discovery production significantly and require the Court to 

review portions of each of the government’s discovery productions. By contrast, the current 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 407 Filed 04/13/16 Page 2 of 3
Government’s Response to Defendant Ammon Bundy’s Motion to Modify 

Protective Order 

Page 3

Protective Order is based on good cause and is narrowly tailored to the specific circumstances in 

this case. 

 Finally, counsel for Ammon Bundy states that the Protective Order has hampered his 

ability to defend his client. Counsel refers to the need for “crowdsourcing” and the “assistance 

of a network of thousands of people.” As counsel is surely aware, Oregon Rule of Professional 

Conduct 5.3 addresses Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants. Specifically, Rule 

5.3(a) provides: “With respect to a nonlawyer employed or retained, supervised or directed by a 

lawyer . . . a lawyer having direct supervisory authority over the nonlawyer shall make 

reasonable efforts to ensure that the person’s conduct is compatible with the professional 

obligations of the lawyer” (emphasis added). 

 While this case is complex, it is simply not credible that a defense lawyer would need to 

provide discovery to “large groups” of “research volunteers” to provide effective assistance of 

counsel to a defendant in this matter. 

II. Conclusion 

The government respectfully recommends that defendant Ammon Bundy’s Motion to 

Modify the Protective Order be denied. 

 Respectfully submitted this 13th day of April 2016. 

 BILLY J. WILLIAMS 

 United States Attorney 

 s/ Craig J. Gabriel 

 ETHAN D. KNIGHT, OSB #992984 

 GEOFFREY A. BARROW 

 CRAIG J. GABRIEL, OSB #012571 

 Assistant United States Attorneys 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 407 Filed 04/13/16 Page 3 of 3