United States District Court, D. Maine
ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR RECORDS
A. WOODCOCK, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
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.
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).
THE PARTIES’ POSITIONS
David L. Cook’s Motion
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.
The Government’s Response and Motion
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
David L. Cook’s Reply
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.
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.