Trentadue v. FBI, et al

Filing 1

[9610450] Civil case docketed. Preliminary record filed. DATE RECEIVED: 11/05/2008 Docketing statement due 11/21/2008 for Federal Bureau Of Investigation and Federal Bureau Of Investigation's Oklahoma City Field Office. Transcript order form due 11/21/2008 for Carlie Christensen. Notice of appearance due on 11/21/2008 for Federal Bureau Of Investigation, Federal Bureau Of Investigation's Oklahoma City Field Office and Jesse C. Trentadue.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION

JESSE C. TRENTADUE,
Plaintiff,
ORDER
vs.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION and FEDERAL
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
OKLAHOMA CITY FIELD OFFICE,

Case No. 2:04CV772 DAK

Defendants.

This matter is before the court on the Federal Defendants’ Motion to Reconsider
Discovery Order and Request for Oral Argument. The court has carefully reviewed the written
memoranda submitted by the parties. Pursuant to local rule 7-1(f), the court has concluded that
oral argument would not be helpful or necessary, and thus the court will determine the motion on
the basis of the written memoranda. See DUCivR 7-1(f). Now, being fully advised, the court
renders the following Order.
On September 20, 2007, the court issued granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Conduct
Discovery. Specifically, the court stated that it would permit Plaintiff to take–and videotape–the
depositions of Nichols and Hammer, so long as these individuals are willing to cooperate.
The Federal Defendants argue (1) that this court’s Discovery Order exceeds the
permissible scope of discovery under FOIA, (2) that the court lacks jurisdiction because the court

there is no longer an Article III case and controversy, (3) there is no question as to the FBI’s good
faith sufficient to justify the Discovery Order, and (4) the BOP has determined that a video
recording poses a threat to the security of the institutions where these individuals are confined.
Defendants, however, asserted the first three arguments in their Memorandum in
Opposition. The court rejected those arguments previously and will not reconsider them at this
point. As to the BOP’s concern that a video recording poses a threat to the security of the
institutions, the court will limit the usage of the video recording equipment to only the room in
which the deposition is taken. The two affidavits submitted by the Federal Defendants express
concerns that various aspects of the prison grounds, security systems, equipment storage, offices,
staff, other inmates and various other items might be filmed.
While it is doubtful that Plaintiff intended to video anything other than Nichols and
Hammer during their actual depositions, the court hereby orders that no video equipment may be
used other than in the specific room where each deposition is taking place, and the video
equipment may not record the images of any person other than Nichols and Hammer. In
addition, if it would allay the security concerns of the respective prison officials, Plaintiff is
directed to make arrangements to meet an designated prison official at a predetermined location
outside of the correctional facility and so that the prison official may take possession of the
recording equipment and transport it to the proper location where the deposition will take place.
Now that the court has declined to reconsider its Discovery Order and made clear that
Plaintiff is entitled to conduct this discovery, the court will now close this case. Plaintiff has
stated, however, that he “believes that if he is allowed to depose Nichols and Hammer, these men
2

will be able to provide evidence that will link the informants thus far revealed to the SPLC and,
thereby, identify and/or document the existence of records responsive to Plaintiff’s FOIA
requests that have not been produced.” If Plaintiff is correct and through these depositions he
discovers the existence of records responsive to Plaintiff’s FOIA request, he may file a motion to
reopen the case. At that point, the court will determine whether it is appropriate to reopen the
case or to direct Plaintiff to file another FOIA request.
Finally, the Federal Defendants have filed an “Objection” to Plaintiff’s filing of a “Notice
of Release of Documents,” along with attached documents. While the court agrees that they are
not relevant to the issue of whether Plaintiff is entitled to depose Nichols and Hammer–and the
court has not relied on these documents in making its decision–the court declines to strike them
from the record, as requested by the Federal Defendants.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Federal Defendants’
Motion to Reconsider [docket # 114] is DENIED and their Objection [docket # 130] is
OVERRULED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
DATED this 25th day of September, 2008.
BY THE COURT:

DALE A. KIMBALL
United States District Judge

3