U.S.
v.
Robinson

This case is not covered by Casetext's citator
United States District Court, D. MassachusettsFeb 25, 2009
Cr. No. 08-10309-MLW. (D. Mass. Feb. 25, 2009)

Cr. No. 08-10309-MLW.

February 25, 2009


ORDER


The court has received the United States' Motion for Reconsideration (the "Motion") of portions of the February 23, 2009 Order addressed to the government (Docket No. 72), and request for leave to submit a memorandum in support of the Motion by March 16, 2009. The court will defer ruling on the Motion until the government's memorandum is received and considered.

The court understands the February 23, 2009 Order to be consistent with the colloquy and representations made by the government at the February 23, 2009 hearing, but agrees that the preparation of the transcript will be helpful to assure that there has not been a misunderstanding. The court notes that the procedures regarding "Authorized Individuals" for the purpose of the February 23, 2009 Order were discussed at the February 20, 2009 hearing and are derived from an order issued by this court in United States v. Salemme, 978 F. Supp. 386, 389-90 (D. Mass. 1997).

In response to paragraph 1 of the February 23, 2009 Order, Assistant United States Attorney Paul Levenson's February 24, 2009 Affidavit states that he expects that the list of government employees to whom the identity of the victim in this case has been disclosed, and who therefore are subject to the February 23, 2009 Order, should be completed by March 2, 2009.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Assistant United States Paul Levenson shall, by March 2, 2009, file an affidavit stating either that the list required by paragraph 1 of the February 23, 2009 Order has been completed or will be completed by a particular date.

2. The government shall, by March 16, 2009, file a memorandum in support of its Motion for Reconsideration of portions of the February 23, 2009 Order and a proposed form of the revised order it requests.

3. Unless and until the February 23, 2009 Order is revised, it remains in effect and any wilful violation of it may be deemed a criminal and/or civil contempt.