UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

HARDY LEE BROWNER

No. 20 CR 299

Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr.

GOVERNMENT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 

PURSUANT TO SECTION 3 OF THE 

CLASSIFIED INFORMATION PROCEDURES ACT

The United States of America, by and through JOHN R. LAUSCH, Jr., 

United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, moves for a 

Protective Order pursuant to Section 3 of the Classified Information 

Procedures Act (“CIPA”), Title 18, U.S.C. Appendix III, to allow cleared counsel 

for the defendant to review classified material. The government also attaches 

a proposed Protective Order.

This a criminal matter in which the grand jury has returned an 

indictment charging the defendant with knowingly and willfully make a 

materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement and representation to the 

FBI in a matter involving international terrorism, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 

1001(a)(2). The government anticipates providing cleared counsel for the 

defendant with access to material classified at the “Secret” level. The proposed

Protective Order Pursuant to Section 3 of CIPA will give properly cleared 

defense counsel access to classified discovery and at the same time restrict 

Case: 1:20-cr-00299 Document #: 24 Filed: 07/13/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:91
Motion for Protective Order - 2

defense counsel from sharing the material itself, or its contents, with anyone 

other than their own properly cleared employees or other personnel (who will 

also be required to obtain the proper clearance) who are necessary to assist in 

the preparation of this case.

Section 3 of CIPA mandates that the district court issue a protective 

order upon the motion of the United States to protect against the disclosure of 

any classified information that is disclosed by the government to the defense.

Section 3 was intended “to codify the well-established practice, based on the 

inherent authority of federal courts, to issue protective orders,” United States 

v. Pappas, 94 F.3d 795, 801 (2d Cir. 1996) (quoting CIPA legislative history 

H.R. Rep. No. 831, 96th Cong., 2d Sess., pt. 1 (1980)), as well as to supplement 

the district court’s authority under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 

16(d)(1) to issue protective orders in connection with the discovery process.1 In 

contrast to Rule 16(d)(1)’s discretionary authority, however, Section 3 “makes 

it clear that protective orders are to be issued, if requested, whenever the 

government discloses classified information to a defendant in connection with 

a prosecution, e.g., Brady and Jencks material.” Id. 

For the reasons stated, the government requests that the Court issue the 

proposed Protective Order Pursuant to Section 3 of the Classified Information 

 1 Rule 16(d)(1) provides in relevant part that “[a]t any time the court may, for 

good cause, deny, restrict, or defer discovery or inspection, or grant other appropriate relief.”

Case: 1:20-cr-00299 Document #: 24 Filed: 07/13/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:92
Motion for Protective Order - 3

Procedures Act so that appropriately cleared counsel for the defendant may 

review the classified discovery material, if they wish to do so, and so that 

sensitive discovery materials may be disseminated to the defense.

Respectfully submitted,

JOHN R. LAUSCH, Jr. 

United States Attorney

By: /s/ Barry Jonas

BARRY JONAS

JORDAN MATTHEWS

Assistant U.S. Attorneys

219 South Dearborn St., Rm. 500

Chicago, Illinois 60604

(312) 353-5300

Dated: July 13, 2020

Case: 1:20-cr-00299 Document #: 24 Filed: 07/13/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:93