Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Cook

United States District Court, D. Maine

August 30, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
DAVID L. COOK

          ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR RECORDS

          JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         The Defendant seeks an order requiring the Probation Office to turn over to him in unredacted format certain mental health and medical treatment records that were created by the Bureau of Prisons while the Defendant was incarcerated there. The Court preliminarily orders the Probation Office to turn over to the Defendant a set of Bureau of Prisons treatment records that are redacted to remove the names of any minors and of any personal identifying information for individuals other than the Defendant. The Court defers ruling on whether the Defendant has the right to an unredacted copy of the records and on whether the Government is entitled to receive a copy of those records.

         I. BACKGROUND

         A. Procedural History

         On May 17, 2017, a federal grand jury indicted David L. Cook for accessing child pornography with an intent to view, an alleged violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). Indictment (ECF No. 2). On June 21, 2017, Mr. Cook moved for an order to view and copy files held by the United States Probation Office. Mot. for Order to View and Copy Files of United States Probation and Parole (EFC No. 24) (Def.’s Mot.). On June 30, 2017, the Government responded. Gov’t’s Resp. to Mot. for Order to View and Copy Files of United States Probation and Parole (ECF No. 28) (Gov’t’s Resp.). On July 19, 2017, Mr. Cook replied. Def.’s Reply to Gov’t’s Resp. to Mot. for Order to View and Copy Files of the United States Probation and Parole (ECF No. 30) (Def.’s Reply). In the Government’s response, it requested that the Court order that the records be redacted to remove the names of any minors and personal data identifiers for persons other than Mr. Cook. Gov’t’s Resp. at 3. This request was characterized as a motion for redacted records. Gov’t’s Mot. for Redacted Records (ECF No. 29).

         II. THE PARTIES’ POSITIONS

         A. David L. Cook’s Motion

         In his motion, Mr. Cook states that during a detention hearing on May 31, 2017, it came to light that the United States Bureau of Prisons (BOP) had treatment records of Mr. Cook and had sent his entire file for review to the United States Probation Office (PO). Def.’s Mot. at 1. Mr. Cook acknowledges that during his prior incarceration, he had received medical and mental health treatment and counseling. Id. While not waiving any “privileges and immunities that are unique to mental health and medical treatment to the degree that they exist while a prisoner in the [BOP],” Mr. Cook “seeks to view the file and have the [PO] release to the defendant all of the medical and mental health records in their file.” Id. In addition, Mr. Cook seeks to “review and have the [PO] disclose all evidence that may be used to a determination of detention or conditions of release, or during a trial or as part of the sentencing determination in this case.” Id. at 2. In the alternative, Mr. Cook requests “a complete copy of the [PO’s] file or to view the entire file.” Id. Mr. Cook’s motion requests ex parte review by defense counsel without further disclosure to the Government of his “sensitive and personal records without just cause.” Id.

         B. The Government’s Response and Motion

         In its response, the Government indicated that it had no objection to Mr. Cook’s request for the BOP mental health and medical treatment records, but it requested that the PO “redact those records prior to production to remove any names of minors and personal identifiers for persons other than defendant.” Gov’t’s Resp. at 1. The Government represented that it had “consulted with the [PO] and that office’s position is that the defendant has not provided a sufficient basis to support the disclosure of the entire file in the possession of the [PO].” Id. The Government indicated that it agreed with the PO’s position. Id. It explained that Mr. Cook has failed to demonstrate that the records are material. Id. at 2. Furthermore, the Government objected to Mr. Cook’s request that the records be released only to the Defendant. Id. at 1-3.

         C. David L. Cook’s Reply

         First, Mr. Cook accuses the Government of misstating his request, arguing that he is not requesting “the entire file.” Def.’s Reply at 1. Mr. Cook clarifies that he is only seeking the mental health and medical treatment records and any records that “may be used during a determination of detention or conditions of release, or during a trial or as part of the sentencing determination in this case.” Id. at 1-2 (quoting Def.’s Mot. ¶ 5). He observes that if the Government may use the records at a trial or hearing, then by definition the records must be material. Id. at 3.

         Next, Mr. Cook reiterates his demand that the records not be made available to the Government. Id. at 3-4. He disputes the applicability of United States v. Loughner, 782 F. Supp. 2d 829, 833 (D. Ariz. 2011), saying that because the records concern sex offender treatment, the records are more like the records in Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996). Id. at 3-4.

         III. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.