United States of America v. Cochran, et al

Filing 53

ORDER granting in part 43 MOTION for Compliance With the United States' Subpoenas to Beaufort County DSS and Craven County DSS and granting 51 Motion for Leave to File Reply - Plaintiff is directed now to file separately its reply. In its discretion, finding requisite cause to permit this request, a subpoena, reformed as herein discussed, may issue, and the court does order the BCDSS to respond. As such, the earlier subpoena directed to BCDSS is ordered withdrawn. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 08/05/2013. (Baker, C.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
EASTERN DIVISION
NO. 4:12-CV-000220-FL

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

v.
WILLIAM I. COCHRAN, III; WRC,
LLC; EKP, LLC; and EMLAN
PROPERTIES, LLC,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

This matter comes before the court on plaintiffs motion for leave to file a reply to
defendants' stated opposition to motion for a court order directing compliance with subpoenas, and
its underlying motion.
In support of the motion for leave, plaintiff urges need to clarify its position. For the reason
stated, the motion is allowed. Plaintiff is directed now to file separately its reply. As noted, plaintiff
withdraws its subpoena issued to the Craven County Department of Social services ("CCDSS")
because there are no responsive records, as shown by the production made to defendants.
At issue is the separate subpoena issued to the Beaufort County Department of Social
Services ("BCDSS "), which the plaintiff offers now to modify to require only responsive documents
containing reporter identities. Defendants' opposition is founded on public policy also as articulated
by a representative of the BCDSS in discussion with defendants' counsel. Plaintiffs subsequent
discussion with that representative illuminated a more nuanced position. Defendants urge there is

no need for any revelation of identities. Should the court disagree, in the alternative defendants urge
confidentiality of persons' names who are not associated with defendants, and that BCDSS only be
required to reveal a reporter's name if it is William Cochran, III, or an immediate family member
(William Cochran, Jr., Cindy Cochran, Richard Cochran, Debbie Cochran, or Kyle Cochran).
Defendants suggest plaintiff is displaying a lack of concern about the privacy and safety of persons
for whom it claims to speak in making this disclosure request.
Plaintiff, in its reply, argues simply against the limitations promoted by defendants. Plaintiff
seeks to avoid any narrowing of its request, where disclosure of identities may lead it to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Underlying this request appears some thought by plaintiff that
a defendant or a representative thereof has had some involvement in a protective services issue
involving one or more of its witnesses and that it ought to be able to discover that information. In
its discretion, finding requisite cause to permit this request, a subpoena, reformed as herein
discussed, may issue, and the court does order the BCDSS to respond. Before its service on BCDSS,
plaintiff shall tender the new subpoena to defendants for inspection and provide, as defendants have
done, copies of responsive information received from BCDSS to defendants. 1
SO ORDERED, this the 5th day of August, 2013.

~4.4:eUI E W. FLANAGAN
United States District Judge

1

As such, the earlier subpoena directed to BCDSS is ordered withdrawn.

2