0:26-mj-00057•USA v. Flores
Full text
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Nitzana Belle Flores, Defendant. Case No. 26-mj-57 (PAM/DJF) ORDER In response to the Court’s Order (ECF No. 41), the Government filed a brief arguing its reasons why Defendant’s Motion for Disclosure Pursuant to Rule 6(e) (ECF No. 29) should be denied. (ECF No. 42.) The Government’s response contains pure legal argument and discloses no information about the grand jury proceedings in this case or whether it was presented to a grand jury at all. Though the Government’s brief contains no information that is even arguably subject to confidentiality or secrecy, the Government filed its brief ex parte. Ex parte submissions to the Court are permitted only if justified by some ground for confidentiality or secrecy; they are not meant to be a method for the Government to deprive defendants and the public from examining the Government’s legal arguments. See In re Grand Jury Proceedings Relative to Perl, 838 F.2d 304, 306 (8th Cir. 1988) (“The policy of secrecy surrounding grand jury proceedings … is designed to protect from disclosure only the essence of what takes place in the grand jury room.”). Submitting this filing to the Court ex parte is therefore entirely inappropriate, and the Court directs the Clerk of Court to UNSEAL the Government’s brief (ECF No. 42). IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 24, 2026 s/ Dulce J. Foster Dulce J. Foster United States Magistrate Judge CASE 0:26-mj-00057-PAM-DJF Doc. 43 Filed 04/24/26 Page 1 of 1
Wondering how this text applies to your situation?
Free consultation, no commitment
Describe your situation. Our team will contact you by email about your consultation.
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.