Opinion ID: 181375
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The District Court Properly Considered the Government's Motions for Protective Orders Ex Parte

Text: Insofar as Abu-Jihaad faults the district court for entertaining the government's motions for protective orders ex parte, his argument is unconvincing. Abu-Jihaad does not dispute that Section 4 of CIPA and Rule 16(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure both authorize ex parte proceedings. Accordingly, his contention that such submissions are improper [a]bsent a showing of exceptional circumstances, Appellant's Br. at 63, amounts to a challenge to the district court's exercise of discretion to proceed ex parte. The argument fails in light of our decision in United States v. Aref , in which we recognized that where the government moves to withhold classified information from the defense, an adversary hearing with defense knowledge would defeat the very purpose of the discovery rules. 533 F.3d at 81 (internal quotation marks omitted). In such circumstances, a district court's decision to conduct ex parte hearings manifests no abuse of discretion. See id.; see also United States v. Stewart, 590 F.3d at 132 (identifying no error in district court's ex parte, in camera review of materials subject to CIPA motion because such a method for protection of classified material is necessary, and CIPA procedures have been established by Congress and held to be constitutional); United States v. Klimavicius-Viloria, 144 F.3d 1249, 1261 (9th Cir.1998) (concluding that while [e]x parte hearings are generally disfavored, in a case involving classified documents,  ex parte, in camera hearings in which government counsel participates to the exclusion of defense counsel are part of the process that the district court may use in order to decide the relevancy of the information). In sum, because we conclude that the government's submissions fully support the district court's entry of the challenged CIPA orders, that the district court acted well within its discretion in reviewing those submissions ex parte and in camera, and that the orders did not deny Abu-Jihaad any information helpful or material to his defense, we identify no basis in CIPA for vacating the conviction.