1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

LOUIS PRESTA

No. 20 CR 475

Judge Thomas M. Durkin

MOTION FOR ENTRY OF AGREED 

PROTECTIVE ORDER GOVERNING DISCOVERY

Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(d), the United States of America, by JOHN R. 

LAUSCH, JR., United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, moves for 

the entry of an agreed protective order and in support thereof states as follows: 

1. The indictment in this case charges defendant with using an interstate 

facility to facilitate bribery (Counts One, Two, and Three), making a false statement 

(Count Four), willfully failing to file an income tax return (Count Five), and willfully 

filing a false income tax return (Counts Six and Seven). 

2. Defendant was charged in this case following an investigation which 

included the interception of certain communications pursuant to orders issued by the 

Chief Judge or Acting Chief Judge in accordance with Title 18, United States Code, 

Section 2518.

3. Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, § 2518(9), the contents of 

intercepted communications shall not be disclosed at a hearing or other judicial 

proceeding unless each party has been provided with a copy of the court order and 

Case: 1:20-cr-00475 Document #: 17 Filed: 08/20/20 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:55
2

the accompanying applications and affidavits under which the interception was 

made. Those orders, applications, and affidavits are currently under seal.

4. In accordance with its disclosure obligations under Section 2518(9) and 

Rule 16.1, the government intends to produce to defendant and defendant’s counsel 

copies of the sealed applications, affidavits, and orders authorizing the interception 

of communications in this case. 

5. The government requests that the Court direct that the release of the 

applications, affidavits, and court orders, as well as any recordings, reports, and other 

materials that may be turned over in connection with this matter, be subject to the 

conditions set forth in the proposed protective order.

6. The need for a proposed protective order arises from the significant 

constraints imposed by the federal wiretap statute, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510–2520, on the 

disclosure and use of electronic surveillance information. Subsumed in these 

constraints and, indeed, a driving force behind them, is the protection of the privacy 

interests of persons, including third parties, who were intercepted but who not have 

been charged. Although the wiretap applications, affidavits, and orders are being 

disclosed to defendant in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 2518(9), they otherwise remain 

under seal pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2518(8)(b). These materials may be further 

disclosed only “upon a showing of good cause before a judge of competent jurisdiction.” 

18 U.S.C. § 2518(8)(b); In re Applications of Kansas City Star, 666 F.2d 1168, 1175–

76 (8th Cir. 1981) (observing that the district court’s order barring defendant and his 

Case: 1:20-cr-00475 Document #: 17 Filed: 08/20/20 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:56
3

attorneys from disclosing wiretap applications, orders,and intercepted conversations 

was “highly appropriate considering the ‘privacy of other people’” and noting that the 

good-cause requirement of the statute called for consideration by the courts of the 

privacy interests of third parties who might be affected by the disclosure). 

7. The discovery to be provided by the government in this case includes 

sensitive information in addition to the wiretap materials, the unrestricted 

dissemination of which could adversely affect law enforcement interests and the 

privacy interests of third parties.

8. The government has discussed the proposed protective order with 

counsel for defendant, who agrees to the entry of the proposed order. 

Case: 1:20-cr-00475 Document #: 17 Filed: 08/20/20 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:57
4

WHEREFORE, the government respectfully moves this Court to enter the 

proposed protective order relating to the sealed applications, affidavits, and orders 

authorizing the interception of communications in this case, which are being provided 

to defendant and defendant’s counsel as contemplated by Title 18, United States 

Code, Section 2518(9), as well as to any other recordings, reports, and investigative 

materials that may subsequently be turned over in connection with this case.

Respectfully submitted,

JOHN R. LAUSCH, JR. 

United States Attorney

By: /s/ James P. Durkin

JAMES P. DURKIN

Assistant U.S. Attorney

219 South Dearborn St., Rm. 500

Chicago, Illinois 60604

(312) 353-6630

Dated: August 20, 2020

Case: 1:20-cr-00475 Document #: 17 Filed: 08/20/20 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:58