USA v. Bolen et al

EX PARTE ORDER – 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

TONY J. BOLEN (1),

Defendant.

No. 2:23-CR-00074-MKD-1

ORDER DENYING STIPULATIONS
FOR PROTECTIVE ORDERS

ECF Nos. 44, 45

Before the Court are two stipulations for protective orders. ECF Nos. 44, 45.
The stipulations are identical to those filed at ECF Nos. 30 and 31, the only
exception being a change of Defendant Bolen’s counsel. The Court granted the
stipulations filed at ECF Nos. 30 and 31. See ECF Nos. 38, 39. The parties do not
explain the need to duplicative filings or duplicative protective orders. Insofar as
the parties are concerned that the protective orders entered at ECF Nos. 38 and 39
would not permit Defendant Bolen’s new counsel to adequately represent him, the
Court clarifies its prior orders below.

FILED IN THE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK
Sep 26, 2023
Case 2:23-cr-00074-MKD ECF No. 46 filed 09/26/23 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

EX PARTE ORDER – 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The parties’ Stipulation Regarding Computer Forensic Review
Procedures for Child Pornography Contraband, ECF No. 44, is DENIED. The
parties’ Stipulation for Protective Order Regarding Identification of Minor Victims
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3509, ECF No. 45, is DENIED.
2. In each of the Protective Orders filed at ECF Nos. 38, 39, 40, and 41,
any reference to Defense counsel, Defense team, or prior counsel by name,
SHALL BE CONSTRUED as including current counsel of record for Defendants.
IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order
and provide copies to counsel for Defendant, Magistrate Judge Goeke, and the
United States Probation Office.
DATED September 26, 2023.

s/Mary K. Dimke
MARY K. DIMKE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:23-cr-00074-MKD ECF No. 46 filed 09/26/23 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2