Court Opinion

ID: 9954534
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-26 16:01:04.43765+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:11:57.490165
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-1259     Document: 010111022086        Date Filed: 03/26/2024     Page: 1
                                                                                    FILED
                                                                        United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                           Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                            March 26, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                            Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                                Clerk of Court
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

        Plaintiff - Appellee,

  v.                                                           No. 23-1259
                                                 (D.C. No. 1:20-CR-00098-CMA-GPG-2)
  SHIRLEY KOCH,                                                 (D. Colo.)

        Defendant - Appellant.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before MORITZ, BALDOCK, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
                   _________________________________

       Defendant Shirley Koch, a former Sunset Mesa funeral home employee, pleaded

 guilty to one count of mail fraud and aiding and abetting arising out of a scheme in which

 she and her codefendant stole and sold bodies and body parts of hundreds of decedents to

 medical research companies. Defendant filed a direct appeal of her sentence that remains

 pending. Separately, in the instant appeal, Defendant challenges the district court’s Order

 Modifying Protective Order. That order granted the Government’s request to disclose

       *
         After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
 unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this
 appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
 ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
 precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
 estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Appellate Case: 23-1259     Document: 010111022086         Date Filed: 03/26/2024     Page: 2

 limited discovery to the decedents’ attorneys in a related civil case. Defendant’s counsel

 filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California and a motion for leave to withdraw as counsel

 from this appeal. 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Defendant and the government elected not to

 respond. Upon review of the record, we agree with defense counsel that there are no non-

 frivolous grounds for this appeal. Accordingly, we GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw

 in this appeal and DISMISS this appeal.

        In June 2021, at the Government’s request, the district court entered a protective

 order limiting disclosure of discovery in this case to defense counsel, defendant, and

 defendant’s retained experts. Defendant subsequently pleaded guilty. Then, in March

 2023, private counsel for the decedent victims (“private litigants”) requested a plethora of

 specific documentation from discovery in this criminal case for use in two related civil

 cases. In response, the Government moved the district court to disclose two sets of files

 for each victim to the private litigants. The Government reasoned that the files were in the

 FBI’s possession and would not be available to the private litigants by any other means

 without undue hardship.      Defendant opposed the motion, arguing (1) her pending

 sentencing appeal prevents disclosure and (2) the files are property of decedents and cannot

 be turned over by the Government without civil forfeiture proceedings.

        The district court rejected Defendant’s arguments and modified the protective

 order to allow limited disclosure of the specific files that the Government requested to

 the private litigants.   First, the district court held it retained jurisdiction despite

 Defendant’s pending sentencing appeal because modification of the protective order is

 a collateral matter, unrelated to the merits of Defendant’s appeal. R. Vol. I at 38-39

                                              2
Appellate Case: 23-1259    Document: 010111022086        Date Filed: 03/26/2024    Page: 3

 (citing Garcia v. Burlington N.R. Co., 818 F.2d 713, 721 (10th Cir. 1987)). Second, the

 district court noted its broad discretion to modify the protective order and held

 Defendant failed to articulate how the modification would prejudice their substantial

 rights. The court further explained that Defendant’s potential “desire to make the civil

 litigation pending against [her] more burdensome is not legitimate prejudice.” R. Vol.

 I at 41 (citing United Nuclear Corp. v. Cranford Ins. Co., 905 F.2d 1424, 1428 (10th Cir.

 1990)).

       Under Anders, counsel may “request permission to withdraw where counsel

 conscientiously examines a case and determines that any appeal would be wholly

 frivolous.” United States v. Calderon, 428 F.3d 928, 930 (10th Cir.2005) (citing

 Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). “The [c]ourt must then conduct a full examination of the

 record to determine whether defendant's claims are wholly frivolous. If the court

 concludes after such an examination that the appeal is frivolous, it may grant counsel’s

 motion to withdraw and may dismiss the appeal.” Id. Defense counsel filed an Anders

 brief advising the Court that Defendant’s appeal is wholly frivolous. We agree, grant

 counsel’s motion, and dismiss Defendant’s appeal of the protective order.

       As a preliminary matter, we find no non-frivolous grounds for appealing the

 district court’s holding that it had jurisdiction to modify the protective order despite

 Defendant’s sentencing appeal. Defendant’s sentencing appeal challenges the district

 court’s calculation of her Guidelines sentence and its decision to impose an upward

 variance. See United States v. Shirley Koch, Appeal No. 23-1078. There is no question

 that modifying a protective order to grant narrow discovery to different parties in a

                                            3
Appellate Case: 23-1259     Document: 010111022086          Date Filed: 03/26/2024     Page: 4

 civil case involving different claims is a matter collateral to the substantive issues of

 Defendant’s sentence calculation. See Hutchinson v. Pfeil, 105 F.3d 562, 566 (10th

 Cir. 1997) (“The modification of the protective order is a matter collateral to the

 substantive issues in this litigation.”).

        Furthermore, nothing in the record suggests the district court erred by modifying

 the protective order. We review the district court’s modification of the protective order

 for abuse of discretion. S.E.C. v. Merrill Scott & Assocs., Ltd., 600 F.3d 1262, 1271

 (10th Cir. 2010). “[W]here an appropriate modification of a protective order can place

 private litigants in a position they would otherwise reach only after repetition of

 another’s discovery, such modification can be denied only where it would tangibly

 prejudice substantial rights of the party opposing modification.” United Nuclear Corp.,

 905 F.2d at 1428 (citation omitted). Defendant does not dispute that if the private litigants

 proceeded with discovery, they would be able to obtain the requested documents under

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (allowing parties to

 “obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim

 or defense and proportional to the needs of the case[.]”). Moreover, Defendant did not

 argue that modification of the protective order would prejudice her rights, and the Court

 cannot identify any potential prejudice. As such, we conclude the district court acted

 within its discretion in modifying the order.

                                             ***

        We agree with counsel that there is no nonfrivolous basis upon which Defendant

 can challenge the district court’s modification of the protective order. Accordingly,

                                                 4
Appellate Case: 23-1259   Document: 010111022086       Date Filed: 03/26/2024    Page: 5

 Defendant’s appeal is wholly frivolous. Counsel’s motion to withdraw in this appeal is

 GRANTED and this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

                                           Entered for the Court

                                           Bobby R. Baldock
                                           Circuit Judge

                                           5