Case 2:16-cr-00046-GMN-PAL Document 698 Filed 09/30/16 Page 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
5

CHRIS T. RASMUSSEN, ESQ.

Nevada Bar No. 07149
RASMUSSEN & KANG, LLC.
330 South Third Street, Suite 1010
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
(702) 464-6007
chris@rasmussenkang.com

6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEVADA
***

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
PETER SANTILLI,
)
)
Defendant.
)
________________________________)

2:16-cr-00046-GMN-PAL

16
17
18
19

MOTION TO MODIFY AND NARROW THE PROTECTIVE ORDER

Comes Now, Defendant PETER SANTILLI, by and through his counsel Chris T.
Rasmussen, Esq., and submits the following Motion to Modify and Narrow the

20
21

Protective Order.

22
23
24
25

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

This Court issued an extensive and broad protective Order on July 15, 2016.
(Dk. 609). In this Order, the definition of protected discovery is broader than any other

26
protective order that have been issued in the District of Nevada. The current Protective
27
28

Order includes All materials produced by the government in discovery in this case....

Case 2:16-cr-00046-GMN-PAL Document 698 Filed 09/30/16 Page 2 of 4

1
2
3

In the most recent large case involving sensitive discovery, our District issued a more
narrow protective order. (See Attached Order from United States v. Benzer).
In the Benzer case, protected information was defined as:

4
5
6

Protected Documents which will be used by the government in its case in chief
include personal identifiers, including social security numbers, drivers license
numbers, dates of birth, bank account numbers, bank records, and addresses of
participants, witnesses, and victims in this case.

7
8
9

(Benzer Protective Order, Pg. 2, lns 16-19).

The Benzer case involved discovery which alleged misconduct by local

10

government officials within FBI 302's. Counsel in the Benzer case used professional

11

judgment when filing motions which attached 302's and accordingly redacted personal

12

identifiers as was outlined in that cases protective order. That case involved numerous

13

defendants and millions of pages of discovery. Counsel in that case used professional

14
15
16

judgment and no issues regarding the disclosure of personal identifiers came to fruition.
The Government in this case has alleged that law enforcement officers are in

17

some type of danger if their names become public record. Obviously, the personal

18

identifiers of these officers or other witness would be redacted before filing exhibits that

19
20

support motions before this Court.

1.

Proposed Changes to Existing Protective Order

21
22

We request that this Court modify the definition of protected discovery to only

23

include documents, videos, audio, or other items that contain personal identifiers. If the

24

discovery items have personal identifiers, Counsel will redact that information prior to

25

filing these documents. Police reports or FBI reports (302's) can be easily redacted

26

prior to filing which has been done in every other case in this District without issue.

27
28

2.

Reasons For Request to Narrow the Protective Order

Case 2:16-cr-00046-GMN-PAL Document 698 Filed 09/30/16 Page 3 of 4

1
2
3

There are numerous dispositive and in limine motions that are yet to be filed.
For example, the following discovery contains video/audio and photographs that do not
contain personal identifiers but will be the subject of upcoming motions:

4
5

Facebook videos and photos posted by dozens of individuals and

hundereds of responding posts by people throughout the Facebook

profiles;

Dashcam videos of Nevada Highway Patrol that contain audio of radio

traffic that depict the scene at Bunkerville Nevada. These videos identify

10
the name of the Trooper who were operating the vehicle that recorded the
11
events that will be subject to upcoming motions;

12
13

Dashcam and Body Cameras of individual Bureau of Land Management

14

and/or other Park Ranger, Fish and Wildlife that depict the events leading

15

up to the April 9, 2016 protest of the removal of cattle, and what many

16

believed the destruction and shooting of cattle belonging to the Bundy

17
family;

18
19

Gold Butte allotment;

20
21
22
23

Aerial surveillance conducted by government agents of the Bunkerville,

Video interviews of several defendants conducted by FBI agents

pretending to be a documentary crew called Longbow Productions to
extract admissions;

24
25

FBI and Police reports are contained in the discover involving interviews of

26

witnesses and/or other law enforcement personnel that assisted with traffic control

27

during the events in Bunkerville, Nevada. These reports can easily be redacted to

28

Case 2:16-cr-00046-GMN-PAL Document 698 Filed 09/30/16 Page 4 of 4

1
2
3

remove personal identifiers such as social security numbers, dates of birth, personal
addresses, and personal telephone numbers.
Counsel should be allowed to make professional judgments and redact the

4
5
6
7
8
9

personal information of any person outlined in police or FBI reports like counsel in this
District have done in every case prior to this one.
The difficulty of keeping secret every piece of confidential documents is
burdensome which requires a narrowing of the prior protective Order to enable
Counsel for defendants to litigate evidentiary issues in an open court setting that is

10
outlined by the Supreme Court in Globe Newspaper Co. vs. Superior Court, 457 U.S.
11
12

596, 603 (1982).

Conclusion

13
14
15
16

We respectfully request that this Court narrow the protective Order as outlined
above.
DATED this 30th day of September, 2016.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

/S/ Chris T. Rasmussen, Esq.

_____________________________
CHRIS T. RASMUSSEN, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 07149
330 South Third Street, Suite 1010
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
(702) 464-6007
Attorney for Defendant