April 25, 2013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
HENRY STANLEY, JR., Defendant.
JOSEPH SCHLESINGER, #87692 Acting Federal Defender, MICHAEL PETRIK, Jr., #177913 Assistant Federal Defender, Sacramento, California, Attorneys for Defendant HENRY STANLEY, JR.
BENJAMIN B. WAGNER, United States Attorney, MICHELLE RODRIGUEZ, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Attorney for Plaintiff.
STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING DEFENSE FORENSIC COMPUTER EXAMINATION
CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.
THE PARTIES STIPULATE, through their respective counsel, Michelle Rodriguez, Assistant United States Attorney, and Michael Petrik, Jr., Assistant Federal Defender, attorney for Mr. Stanley, to the following proposed protective order governing the defense expert's forensic examination of computer data seized in this case.
In order to advise the defendant adequately, the defense case requires a forensic evaluation by a knowledgeable expert of computer hardware and other material the government alleges contain images of child pornography. The parties have agreed that the attached proposed order should govern the defense examination of the computer media. They ask the Court to approve the proposed order.
PROTECTIVE ORDER CONCERNING DIGITAL MEDIA SAID TO CONTAIN CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
1. The United States Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents shall make a duplicate copy the hard drive and any other storage media available for defense analysis.
2. The duplicate copies of the hard drive and storage media shall be made available for defense counsel, Michael Petrik, defense paralegal, Julie Denny or another member of the defense team, and to defendant's proposed expert, Marcus Lawson, or one of Mr. Lawson's identified colleagues at Global CompuSearch LLC, to review at the Sacramento High Tech Task Force offices in Sacramento for the purpose of preparing the defense of the above-entitled action. Mr. Lawson's identified colleagues are Josiah Roloff and James Goldman. The images on the hard drive and storage media shall not be viewed by any other person on behalf of the defense.
3. A private room will be provided for the defense examination. No Government agents will be inside the room during the examination.
4. The expert will be permitted to bring whatever equipment, books, or records he believes may be necessary to conduct the examination.
5. Neither the defense expert nor defense attorneys nor the defense paralegal shall remove the hard drive or other storage media from the confines of the law enforcement office.
6. With the exception of materials which would be considered child pornography under federal law (including visual depictions and data capable of conversion into a visual depiction), the expert may download and remove files or portions of files, provided the forensic integrity of the hard drive is not altered. The expert will certify in writing (using the attached certification), that he has taken no materials which would be considered child pornography, or data capable of being converted into child pornography, under federal law, and that he has not caused any child pornography to be sent from the law enforcement premises by any means including by any electronic transfer of files.
7. Except when a defense expert fails to provide this certification, no Government agent, or any person connected with the Government, will examine or acquire in any fashion any of the items used by the expert in order to conduct the defense analysis. Should a defense expert fail to certify that the expert has not copied or removed child pornography, or data capable of being converted into child pornography, Government agents may then inspect or examine the materials in order to ensure that prohibited child pornography has not been removed.
8. When the defense indicates that it is finished with its review of the copy of the hard drives, the drive(s) or other storage devices shall be "wiped" clean.
9. Any disputes regarding the above or problems implementing this order shall be brought to the attention of the court through representative counsel after first consulting opposing counsel.
IT IS SO ORDERED.