Trentadue v United States Central Intelligence Agency

Filing 249

MEMORANDUM DECISION and Order Appointing Special Master-ORDER STAYING CASE re: Special Master. Separately, the court also ORDERS Defendant to produce to it the unredacted report together with the appendices that were withheld and STAYS other post-trial proceedings pending the outcome of the investigation of the allegations of witness tampering, as overseen by the special master. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Clark Waddoups on 4/30/15. (jmr)

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

JESSE TRENTADUE,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER APPOINTING SPECIAL
MASTER

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 2:08-cv-0788
UNITED STATES CENTRAL
INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, et al.

Judge Clark Waddoups

Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
On July 29, 2014, during the bench trial of this matter held from July 28 to July 31, 2014,
Plaintiff presented the court with allegations that Defendant FBI (the “Defendant”) had engaged
in witness tampering to prevent Mr. John Matthews from testifying remotely, as planned. The
court requested Defendant to investigate the matter internally and report back to the court. (See
Trial Tr. 7/29/14, at 5:10 – 8:21 [Dkt. No. 218].) Further discussion of the matter during the
course of the trial left a colorable inference of witness tampering in the record that the court
believed must be resolved. Accordingly, at the close of trial, the court set a further hearing for
August 25, 2014 and ordered the FBI to produce Agent Adam Quirk, a Salt Lake City based FBI
agent alleged by Plaintiff to have been involved in the witness tampering. (See Trial Tr. 7/31/14,
at 160:2 – 167:12 [Dkt. No. 220].)
Before the August 25, 2014 hearing, however, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike the
evidentiary hearing as noticed (Dkt. No. 191), and Defendant FBI filed a Motion to Strike (Dkt.

1

No. 203) two declarations submitted by Plaintiff, one from himself and one from his investigator
Mr. Roger Charles, relating to their interactions with Mr. Matthews. The court therefore heard
oral argument on these motions at the August 25, 2014 hearing instead of holding an evidentiary
hearing on the witness tampering allegations at that time. Plaintiff explained that his motion was
in essence a motion to expand the evidentiary hearing based on an email that Mr. Matthews had
sent to Defendant’s counsel and Plaintiff on August 2, 2014. (See Dkt. No. 191-10.) As a result
of statements by Mr. Matthews in that email, Plaintiff wished to expand the evidentiary hearing
to include individuals who had contact with Mr. Matthews.
The court found that “the current record at least permits a reasonable inference of
wrongdoing by Defendant or its agents in influencing Mr. Matthews not to testify” and that this
ambiguity “necessitates the evidentiary hearing for which Plaintiff has moved so that the court can
exercise its ability to protect the integrity of its proceedings.” (Mem. Dec. & Order dated Aug. 26,
2014, at 2-3 [Dkt. No. 213]) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). “An evidentiary
hearing will allow cross-examination of those people with whom Mr. Matthews communicated about
his upcoming trial testimony and his decision not to testify, such as Agent Adam Quirk, and Plaintiff
and Mr. Charles, and will give Defendant, in its discretion, the opportunity to investigate the
involvement of Mr. Don Jarrett, as mentioned in Mr. Matthews’s August 2, 2014 email.” (Id. at 4.)
The court set the evidentiary hearing for November 13, 2014 and ordered Defendant to “conduct an
investigation of any communications between the FBI and Mr. Matthews, or others acting at the
behest of the FBI, including ascertaining what documents have been created relating to such
communication and make a report to the court sufficiently in advance of the hearing so that Plaintiff
can prepare subpoenas, if necessary, and prepare document requests. The court stresses that it wishes
to resolve this issue based on the testimony and evidence offered at the evidentiary hearing.” (Id. at
5.)

2

On November 5, 2014, one week before the scheduled evidentiary hearing, Plaintiff moved to
vacate the hearing (Dkt. No. 229) because Defendant had not yet produced the report ordered by the
court, leaving Plaintiff without sufficient time to prepare and serve subpoenas and document
requests, as specifically referred to in the court’s August 26, 2014 Order. The court granted
Plaintiff’s motion on November 6, 2014, stating that it was “perplexed as to Defendant’s failure to
comply with the order to conduct this investigation and provide the required report.” (Order dated
Nov. 6, 2014, at 2 [Dkt. No. 230].) The court ordered Defendant to appear at the scheduled hearing
prepared to discuss “why it should not be found in contempt for failure to comply with the court’s
Order to conduct this investigation and provide the required report.” (Id.) The court also requested
“the parties to be prepared to discuss why the court should not appoint a special master to oversee the
Defendant’s compliance with court orders, particularly relating to the allegations of witness
tampering, and with Plaintiff’s FOIA request.” (Id.)
Defendant produced the report on November 7, 2014 (Dkt. No. 231), albeit in redacted form
and without the internally referenced appendices. (See Order dated Nov. 10, 2014 [Dkt. No. 236].)
The court therefore ordered the “contempt hearing” to proceed on November 13, 2014. (Id. at 2.) On
November 13, 2014, the court heard from the parties relating to the issue of contempt and as to the
appointment of a special master. The court found that Defendant had not timely responded to the
court’s Order to produce the report of its internal investigation but reserved ruling on whether
sanctions should apply because it found “follow-up investigation necessary to make the record
complete enough to allow the court to resolve this question.” (Order dated Nov. 13, 2014, at 2 [Dkt.
No. 238].)
The court then directed the parties to brief the issue of appointing a special master to oversee
the investigation of the allegation of witness tampering during the bench trial. (Id.) During the
hearing, “[t]he parties agreed that if the court ultimately finds it appropriate to appoint a Special
Master, Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead, to whom the case is already referred under 28 U.S.C. §
3

636(b)(1)(A) to handle discovery matters (see Dkt. No. 121), would be an acceptable choice.” (Id.) In
its Order, the court noted that during the hearing it had listed some of the ways “in which it would
seem desirable for a Special Master to be involved in the present dispute,” including by:
(1) personally overseeing the process of taking depositions of Mr. Matthews, Mr.
Jarrett, and Agent Quirk (and others, as relevant)—in which Plaintiff will be able to
cross-examine these witnesses in the interest of completing the record on this issue—
and pursuing such additional questions as he believes in his discretion are appropriate
to make a complete record, (2) ruling on objections during such depositions or at
other times in which this would be necessary, (3) taking evidence from Plaintiff and
Mr. Charles, [and] (4) receiving and evaluating all internal FBI documents relating to
the FBI’s interactions with Mr. Matthews and the investigation of the witness
tampering allegations and the preparation of the Inspection Division’s Report (Dkt.
No. 231). In addition to the suggestions made during the hearing, the court adds that
it would seem desirable for the Magistrate Judge, acting in the capacity of a post-trial
Special Master, to (5) prepare a Report and Recommendation, including proposed
findings of fact and conclusions of law, on the witness tampering question, and (6)
have the latitude to engage in ex parte communications with the court and with either
party throughout the process at his instigation, in the interest of efficiency and
practicality.

(Id. at 3.) The parties then briefed the issues on the schedule indicated by the court.
Plaintiff urges the court to appoint the special master both (1) to oversee the investigation
of the witness tampering allegations and the report produced by the FBI, which Plaintiff argues
was deficient, in response to the August 26, 2014 Order and (2) to monitor or steer additional
searches for materials responsive to Plaintiff’s FOIA request based on the court’s May 13, 2011
Order, which Plaintiff alleges was not done as ordered. (Pl.’s Mem. Re: Appointment of Special
Master 3 [Dkt. No. 240].)
Defendant objects to the appointment of a special master, arguing that the court “lacks
jurisdiction under the FOIA to orchestrate investigations into the FBI’s compliance with a 2011
Order that related solely to summary judgment proceedings.” (Def.’s Resp. to Mem. Re:
Appointment of Special Master 1 [Dkt. No. 241].) As to the witness tampering allegations,
Defendant argues that because Defendant provided the report ordered by the court, the court’s

4

“authority to issue a contempt finding to compel compliance with its August 26, 2014 order” has
ended. (Id.) Moreover, Defendant argues that “there must be a sufficient factual basis suggesting
that the FBI might actually have engaged in witness tampering before the Court can appoint a
special master to conduct an investigation” of the witness tampering allegations. (Id. at 2.)
According to Defendant, the report it submitted shows that “[n]o such factual predicate exists
here.” (Id.) Defendant suggests that the court “could simply ask Magistrate Judge Pead to review
the unredacted transcripts, recordings, and other material that the FBI has already gathered,
subject to the FBI’s assertion of law enforcement privilege with respect to some of this material,
and to make a report and recommendation regarding Plaintiff’s witness tampering allegation
based on those materials.” (Id. at 2-3.)
ANALYSIS
By statute, “[a] judge may designate a magistrate judge to serve as a special master
pursuant to the applicable provisions of this title and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the
United States district courts.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(2). Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure authorizes the court, in its discretion, to appoint a special master to “address pretrial
and posttrial matters,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(a)(1)(C), including post-trial “investigations” of matters
that “a judge might not feel free to undertake.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 53, Advisory Committee Note of
2003, FEDERAL CIVIL JUDICIAL PROCEDURE AND RULES 243 (West 2015). The Advisory
Committee Note of 2003 also explains that the “line” between when a special master is
functioning as a pretrial, trial, or post-trial master “is not distinct.” (Id.) “A pretrial master might
well conduct an evidentiary hearing on a discovery dispute, and a post-trial master might conduct
evidentiary hearings on questions of compliance” (id.), including, the court finds, compliance
with previous court orders. Moreover, “in some circumstances a master may be appointed under

5

Rule 53(a)(1)(A) or (C) to take evidence and report without recommendations.” (Id.) The court
acknowledges that “[t]here is no apparent reason to appoint a magistrate judge to perform as
master duties that could be performed in the role of magistrate judge.” (Id.) Indeed, nondispositive pretrial matters have already been referred to Magistrate Judge Pead in this case
under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). But “in special circumstances,” the Advisory Committee has
explained, “it may be appropriate to appoint a magistrate judge as a master when needed to
perform functions outside those listed in § 636(b)(1).” (Id.) Such special circumstances exist
here, where, in overseeing the investigation of the alleged witness tampering, the special master
will need to “perform functions outside those listed” in his existing appointment under §
636(b)(1)(A).
In its Memorandum Decision and Order dated August 26, 2014, the court ordered an
evidentiary hearing on the witness tampering allegations, explaining the problem these
allegations pose for the integrity of the proceedings and the potential application of the
“forfeiture doctrine” codified in Rule 804(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, also referred to
in case law as “waiver by misconduct,” depending on the outcome of the evidentiary hearing.
(Mem. Dec. & Order dated Aug. 26, 2014, at 2-3 [Dkt. No. 213].) This evidentiary hearing was also
meant to “resolve [the] question of admissibility” of statements that would ordinarily constitute
hearsay evidence, for example prior extra-judicial statements, in situations to which the Federal
Rules of Evidence must be strictly applied. (Id. at 4.) Such hearsay evidence, however, may be
considered in such an evidentiary hearing “conducted to resolve a ‘preliminary question’ about
whether evidence is admissible.” (Id. at 3 (citing Fed. R. Evid. 104(a) and U.S. v. White, 116 F.3d
903, 914 (D.C. Cir. 1997)).)
As the court noted, “[a]n evidentiary hearing will allow cross-examination of those people
with whom Mr. Matthews communicated about his upcoming trial testimony and his decision not to
6

testify, such as Agent Adam Quirk, and Plaintiff and Mr. Charles, and will give Defendant, in its
discretion, the opportunity to investigate the involvement of Mr. Don Jarrett, as mentioned in Mr.
Matthews’s August 2, 2014 email. (See Dkt. No. 191-10.)” (Id. at 4.) The evidentiary hearing could
potentially have implications for the evidence adduced at trial, possibly requiring “application of the
Adverse Inference Rule against Defendant should the court find, at the conclusion of the evidentiary
hearing, that Defendant has ‘wrongfully caused—or acquiesced in wrongfully causing—[Mr.
Matthews’s] unavailability as a witness, and did so intending that result.’” (Id. at 4-5 (quoting Fed. R.
Evid. 804(b)(6)).) “This would have implications for Plaintiff’s proffer of Mr. Matthews’s testimony
in the bench trial—possibly requiring, as Plaintiff has requested, the reopening of the bench trial ‘for
the limited purpose of allowing Plaintiff to put into evidence his proffer as to what Matthews told
him about PATCON’ (Pl.’s Resp. Def.’s Mot. Strike 11 [Dkt. No. 210])—because, under the
Adverse Inference Rule, ‘[a]n attempt by a litigant to persuade a witness not to testify is properly
admissible against him as an indication of his own belief that his claim is weak or unfounded or
false.’” (Id. at 5 (quoting Ty Inc. v. Softbelly’s Inc., 353 F.3d 528, 534 (7th Cir. 2003)).)
In preparation for the evidentiary hearing, Defendant was to provide a report based on an
internal investigation of the allegations, as discussed above. The report was not provided in time for
Plaintiff to prepare subpoenas and/or request documents such that an evidentiary hearing would be
substantively meaningful to the court in making these vital determinations. The report as presented
did not dispel the court’s concerns that an investigation into the allegations for purposes of gathering
evidence is necessary.
It is undisputed that the court has the inherent power “to conduct an independent
investigation in order to determine whether it has been the victim of fraud.” Chambers v. NASCO,
Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991). But such an “independent investigation” into the witness tampering
allegations—which must now include an independent review of Defendant’s internal processes in
preparing the report it submitted in addition to the task of gathering and preserving evidence in the
7

form of testimony and/or documents from Plaintiff, Mr. Charles, Mr. Matthews, Mr. Jarrett, Agent
Quirk, and others who may surface as having been involved in interactions with Mr. Matthews,
including based on any documents that must be produced as part of Defendant’s internal
investigation and/or that were used in the preparation of the report that was presented—by definition
consists of investigative “duties that might not be suitable for a judge,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 53, Advisory

Committee Note of 2003, at 243, for example, where a bench trial has already been concluded in
the matter.
Here, the court finds that it cannot “effectively and timely” oversee an investigation of this
nature to enforce its August 26, 2014 Order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(a)(1)(C). And the court believes that
appointing a special master to conduct this investigation will insulate the court and preserve its
ability to maintain its objective role in adjudicating this matter between the parties. Moreover, a post-

trial master’s “role in enforcement may extend to investigation in ways that are quite unlike the
traditional role of judicial officers in an adversary system.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 53, Advisory
Committee Note of 2003, at 243. Courts have relied on special masters for complex
investigations and preservation of evidence under Rule 53. See, e.g., Hofmann v. EMI Resorts,
Inc., 689 F. Supp. 2d 1361, 1367 (S.D. Fla. 2010). Although Magistrate Judge Pead is already
assigned to this case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), he has not had any involvement in the bench

trial that has already been concluded. The court believes he will therefore be able “effectively and
timely” to oversee an investigation of the report and the witness tampering allegations in order to
enforce the court’s August 26, 2014 Order. As noted above, the parties agreed at oral argument

that if the court ultimately finds it appropriate to appoint a special master, Magistrate Judge
Dustin B. Pead would be an acceptable choice.
For the reasons stated above, the court finds it appropriate and necessary to appoint
Magistrate Judge Pead as a post-trial special master under Rule 53(a)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules
8

of Civil Procedure. Magistrate Judge Pead will oversee the investigation into the report
submitted by Defendant and into Plaintiff’s allegations of witness tampering, as detailed below.
At this stage of the proceedings, the court will not extend the special master’s appointment to
investigation of the sufficiency of Defendant’s compliance with the court’s May 13, 2011 Order
relating to performing further FOIA searches. The court’s ultimate findings relating to
Defendant’s FOIA obligations will depend on the outcome of this independent investigation into
Plaintiff’s witness tampering allegations. As noted above, depending on the outcome of the
investigation, it might become necessary to reopen the bench trial to allow Plaintiff to make an
evidentiary proffer. Any ultimate conclusion as to the FOIA searches, therefore, would be
premature at this time.
Separately, the court also ORDERS Defendant to produce to it the unredacted report
together with the appendices that were withheld and STAYS other post-trial proceedings pending
the outcome of the investigation of the allegations of witness tampering, as overseen by the
special master.
[space intentionally left blank]

9

ORDER APPOINTING SPECIAL MASTER
The Court, upon consideration of the parties’ proposals and recommendations regarding
the appointment of a Special Master in this case, hereby ORDERS as follows:
Pursuant to Rule 53(a)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and exercising its
inherent powers, the Court hereby APPOINTS Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead as Special
Master in this action, effective immediately upon Judge Pead’s filing an affidavit as required by
Rule 53(b)(3)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure stating that there are no grounds for
disqualification under 28 U.S.C. § 455.
The powers and duties of the Special Master are limited to those specifically set forth
herein. In overseeing this independent investigation, the Special Master shall not have the power
to issue any orders or impose any sanctions except as specifically provided by Rule 53(c),
including the authority to issue orders and sanctions as referred to in Rule 53(c)(1)(C) and (c)(2)
and to rule on evidentiary objections or like matters at depositions. The court directs the Special
Master to follow the guidelines and requirements of Rule 53 in all relevant and applicable
respects.
I.

RULE 53(b) APPOINTING ORDER
A.

POWERS AND DUTIES OF SPECIAL MASTER

1. The Special Master shall investigate, examine, and report upon Defendant’s compliance
with the court’s Memorandum Decision and Order of August 26, 2014, and specifically
the allegations of witness tampering involving Mr. John Matthews.
2. The Special Master shall collect from Defendant for ex parte, in camera review an
unredacted copy of the FBI’s internal report of the witness tampering allegations (Dkt.
No. 231), together with copies of the appendices listed in the report’s Table of Contents

10

and any documents relied upon or relevant to Defendant’s internal investigation and/or that
were used in the preparation of the report that was presented, including, but not limited to,
(a)

copies of all recorded telephone calls and voicemail recordings between Mr.

Matthews and the FBI, including between Mr. Matthews and Agent Quirk;
(b)

copies of any transcripts prepared of those calls;

(c)

any “302” reports and/or other reports prepared of interviews with Agent
Quirk, Mr. Jarrett, and/or Mr. Matthews;

(d)

any investigators’ notes and/or recordings of interviews with Mr. Jarrett, Mr.
Matthews, and Agent Quirk;

(e)

any e-mails and/or other documents that Mr. Jarrett and/or Mr. Matthews gave
to FBI investigators;

(f)

all documents that record, refer to, or memorialize communications between
Agent Quirk and/or others within the FBI regarding Mr. Matthews testifying
in the instant case as well as records of all communications between Mr.
Jarrett and/or Mr. Matthews and anyone within the FBI or the Department of
Justice about Mr. Matthews.

3. In its ex parte submission to the Special Master, Defendant shall identify any information
that it deems privileged. The Special Master shall also collect from the FBI for ex parte,
in camera review any material the FBI may wish to submit in regard to such assertions of
privilege. If disclosure of information identified as privileged is contemplated, the
Special Master shall rule on any such assertions of privilege, subject to appeal to the
court. Any filing or public release of material identified in Paragraph 2 shall be subject to
and consistent with the resolution of any such privilege assertions.

11

4. The Special Master shall oversee the production to Plaintiff of the unredacted report and
the appendices, if appropriate in his discretion after consideration of privilege claims, and
any non-privileged documents relied upon or relevant to Defendant’s internal investigation
and/or that were used in the preparation of the report that was presented, as listed in
Paragraph 2.

5. The Special Master shall attend the depositions of Mr. Matthews, Mr. Don Jarrett, Agent
Quirk (and others, as relevant), as well as Plaintiff and Mr. Roger Charles, in which the
parties will be able to cross-examine these individuals as to matters relevant to the
witness tampering allegations, and, in the interest of ensuring the record is complete on
this issue, he may pursue such additional questions or take such additional evidence as he
believes in his discretion are appropriate for this purpose.
6. In addition, the Special Master shall also inquire into and report upon the following
matters:
(a)

when the interviews with Don Jarrett, John Matthews, and Adam Quirk were
completed by investigators from the Inspection Division;

(b)

when a draft or copy of the Inspection Division’s report was first circulated
and to whom it was circulated within the FBI and/or Department of Justice;

(c)

whether counsel for the FBI or any other Department of Justice Attorneys
reviewed the report and, if so, who and when;

(d)

whether anyone other than personnel from the Inspection Division suggested
changes to the report and, if so, who and what were the suggested changes,
including any record of those suggested changes;

(e)

whether there were communications between the Inspection Division and
anyone within the Department of Justice concerning the report prior to
12

November 7, 2014 and, if so, who and when as well as the substance of any
such communications, including any records of those communications;
(f)

the scope of the investigation conducted by the Inspection Division, including
all documents or communications that defined or limited the investigation that
the Inspection Division was to conduct into the allegations of witness
tampering;

(g)

the lawfulness of and/or basis for the Inspection Division to redact or
otherwise withhold from the court and Plaintiff materials referenced in its
report, including the material identified in the appendices to that report; and

(h)

if relevant, the possible motive of Defendant in persuading or otherwise
influencing Mr. Matthews not to testify.

7. Upon the conclusion of his investigation, the Special Master shall prepare a Report and
Recommendation, including proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on
Defendant’s compliance with the court’s Memorandum Decision and Order of August 26,
2014, specifically the allegations of the witness tampering involving Mr. Matthews.
B.

EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS
In the interest of the efficient and timely resolution of this matter, and when functioning

in his investigative rather than judicial capacity, the Special Master shall be authorized to engage
in ex parte communications with the court and/or either party. However, ex parte
communications shall be limited to those necessary, such as for example in connection with the
Special Master’s review of privileged documents and the FBI’s claims of privilege. The parties
shall be given reasonable notice and an opportunity to object before any ex parte

13

communications take place. Any ruling by the Special Master on such objections may be
appealed to the court.
C.

NATURE OF MATERIALS TO BE PRESERVED AND FILED AS THE RECORD
OF THE SPECIAL MASTER’S ACTIVITIES
The Special Master shall preserve and file, as an appendix to his Report and

Recommendation, all materials reviewed by the Special Master, expressly identifying all
evidence considered in making his recommendations. The Special Master shall file the Report
and Recommendation and accompanying appendix on the docket by means of the Court’s
Electronic Case Filing System. Any motion or document shall be submitted and/or filed by the
parties pursuant to instructions to be issued by the Special Master. Any document reviewed in
camera and designated as privileged shall retain that designation and be filed under seal.
D.

TIME LIMITS AND STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR SPECIAL MASTER’S
DECISIONS
The Special Master shall proceed with reasonable diligence and according to a scheduling

order entered in consultation with the parties.
The parties shall be provided twenty-one (21) days from the filing of any Report and
Recommendation in which to file objections. The court will review de novo all objections raised
by the parties to the Special Master’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Special
Master’s procedural rulings may be set aside for an abuse of discretion.
E.

COST TO THE PARTIES
Because the Special Master also serves as a Magistrate Judge of the court, he shall not be

compensated for his work performed as Special Master. As a Magistrate Judge, the Special
Master’s expenses in attending depositions or for other such purposes will be covered by the
court. The parties shall bear their own costs and expenses. However, in the event Defendant is

14

ultimately found to have engaged in witnesses tampering, Plaintiff may be able to recover costs
and expenses upon relevant motion at that time.
Before incurring any costs, including any costs incurred by agents, experts, or other thirdparties that the Special Master may, in his discretion, choose to employ for the purpose of
carrying out his duties, the Special Master shall prepare and file a budget of estimated fees and
costs. Any objections to the Special Master’s budget must be made within five (5) days of its
submission and will be resolved by the Special Master. Any ruling by the Special Master on such
objections may be appealed to the court. After resolution of any objections, invoices for such
costs or expenses shall be paid equally by the parties, provided, however, that in the event
Defendant is found to have engaged in witnesses tampering, Defendant might be required to
reimburse such costs. Pursuant to Rule 53(g)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, after
ruling on any Report and Recommendation of the Special Master, the court will consider a
motion of a party whether to amend this interim allocation of costs.
II.

AMENDMENT OF RULE 53(b) APPOINTING ORDER
This Order may be amended at any time by the court after reasonable notice and an

opportunity to be heard is provided to all parties.
III.

DESIGNEES
The following persons shall be the Special Master’s primary contacts with the parties:
For Plaintiff Jesse C. Trentadue, 8 East Broadway, Suite 200, Salt Lake City, UT 84111,

Telephone: [phone], E-Mail: [e-mail].
For Defendant FBI, Kathryn L. Wyer and Adam C. Siple, United States Department of
Justice, Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch, 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington,

15

D.C. 20530, Telephone: [phone], E-Mail: [e-mail];
[e-mail].
SO ORDERED this 30th day of April, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

_________________________________
Clark Waddoups
United States District Judge

16