Opinion ID: 548
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: United States' Motion to Modify Protective Orders

Text: In October 2007, the district court entered an order approving a settlement between the SEC, the receiver, and Dr. Gerber. Shortly before the settlement, the United States sought to intervene in this action and to modify the protective orders to permit broader disclosure to and use by agencies other than the SEC. The government admitted that the SEC had provided Confidential Information to the United States Attorney's Office, and that the U.S. Attorney had, in turn, provided this evidence to interested investigators and auditors of the [IRS]. Id. at 165. It argued that this was consistent with the government's reading of the protective orders, which did not restrict the use that the U.S. Attorney could make of the documents. It requested that the protective orders be modified to make it clear that they permit the United States Attorney's office to use the disclosed information and materials to perform its functions of promoting and enforcing compliance with the civil and criminal laws of the United States. Id. at 174. Dr. Gerber opposed the intervention and filed a cross-motion with the court for return of all documents allegedly disseminated in violation of the protective orders and for discovery to determine the extent of any violation. A magistrate judge assigned to this case granted the motion to intervene. Proclaiming himself troubled by the lack of information about the precise manner in which materials apparently subject to protective orders in this case have come into the possession of the IRS, id. at 322, he ordered that discovery be permitted. Dr. Gerber did not file objections to the portion of the order permitting intervention. The government objected to the magistrate judge's decision permitting discovery. The district court subsequently held a hearing on the government's objections. At this hearing, the district court stated, I apologize for my errors ... I clearly contemplated ... that the SEC could turn [Confidential Information] over to the U.S. Attorney's Office and the [DOJ].... When I signed that other order that did away with that, I was in error. Id. at 343. Dr. Gerber's counsel did not consider this judicial concession of error dispositive. He conceded that the SEC could turn over materials to the DOJ, but only for use in this action. Id. at 344. He argued that the DOJ had therefore violated the order by turning materials over to the IRS, which were being used against him in other contexts. He also argued that Dr. Gerber had given his deposition in reliance on the terms of the protective order, and that disclosure to the IRS of the information he had provided violated his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.