USA v. Lytle et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
WESTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ROBERT LARRY LYTLE, a/k/a Larry
Lytle; IRINA KOSSOVSKAIA; and
FREDRETTA L. EASON;
Defendants.
5:17-CR-50020-KES
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO UNSEAL TRANSCRIPT
OF RETURN OF INDICTMENTS AND
RELATED AUDIO RECORDING
Defendant, Robert Larry Lytle, moves the court to unseal and make
available to the public the Transcript of the Return of Indictments and related
audio recording of the grand jury’s return of the Indictments in this matter.
Docket 105. Plaintiff does not object. Docket 107.
28 U.S.C. § 753(b) provides, in pertinent part, that “[e]ach session of the
court and every other proceeding designated by rule or order of the court or by
one of the judges shall be recorded verbatim by shorthand, mechanical means,
electronic sound recording, or any other method, subject to regulations
promulgated by the Judicial Conference and subject to the discretion and
approval of the judge.” According to the plain language of the Act, electronic
sound recordings are not required to be prepared when another official method
of recording is used.
Case 5:17-cr-50020-RAL Document 113 Filed 12/04/17 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>

Here, the Return of Indictments by the grand jury was officially recorded
verbatim by shorthand by a court reporter hired by the court. The court
reporter followed her usual procedure by using a stenotype to document all
statements made during the grand jury proceeding. She later transcribed her
notes into the grand jury proceeding transcript and filed it with the court. The
court finds this transcript is the official record of the grand jury proceeding.
The court also utilized the For the Record (FTR) recording system during the
grand jury proceeding, which is a digital recording made during court
proceedings when a court reporter is not available or necessary. See
http://fortherecord.com. But because the court reporter produced the official
record in this case, the court finds that FTR was a back up recording device for
court use only. See Emmel v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Chicago, Inc., 904 F.
Supp. 723, 752 (N.D. Ill. 1995). As a result, none of the parties are entitled to a
copy of the FTR audio recording. Thus,
IT IS ORDERED that defendant Lytle’s motion to unseal (Docket 105) is
granted in part and denied in part. The Return of Indictments transcript will be
unsealed, but the related audio recordings will not be released.
DATED this 4th day of December, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Karen E. Schreier
KAREN E. SCHREIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:17-cr-50020-RAL Document 113 Filed 12/04/17 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>