Case 1:18-cr-00032-DLF Document 82 Filed 12/31/18 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

CONCORD MANAGEMENT AND
CONSULTING, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Criminal No. 18-CR-32 (DLF)

GOVERNMENT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN
EX PARTE, IN CAMERA, CLASSIFIED ADDENDUM TO THE GOVERNMENT’S
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISCLOSE DISCOVERY PURSUANT
TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
As this Court has previously found, and as the Government will further establish in its
forthcoming opposition, there exists “good cause” under Rule 16(d)(1) to consider and impose
restrictions on the dissemination of discovery (particularly restrictions pertaining to the fugitive
co-defendant, Yevgeniy Prigozhin) to “protect the important national security, law enforcement,
and privacy interests at issue in this case.” June 29, 2018, Mem. Op. & Order at 4, Dkt. 42.
Those important interests—in particular, those threatening the national security of the United
States—remain squarely at issue. Under these unique circumstances, the applicable caselaw
provides ample basis upon which the Court may properly consider a limited, factual ex parte
addendum and the Defense arguments to the contrary are without merit.
In this limited filing, the Government seeks leave to provide the Court, ex parte, in
camera, certain classified information in connection with its forthcoming opposition to
Concord’s Motion for Approval to Disclose Discovery. See Dkt. 77 (Concord’s motion); Dkt. 80
(Government’s motion for leave to file ex parte). This classified information is not information

 Case 1:18-cr-00032-DLF Document 82 Filed 12/31/18 Page 2 of 5

to which Concord would be entitled in discovery; rather it is information pertinent only to the
Court’s consideration of appropriate restrictions to be placed on the dissemination of sensitive
discovery. At issue in Concord’s motion, among other things, is its request to share this
sensitive discovery with Prigozhin, a Russian national who controls Concord, but is also a codefendant and remains a fugitive. As Concord acknowledges, when this same issue—sharing
discovery with Prigozhin—was previously before the Court, the Court permitted the Government
to proceed ex parte in presenting certain information in support of its publically-filed arguments.
See June 29, 2018, Mem. Op. & Order, Dkt. 42; June 27, 2018, Tr. 20, Dkt. 41. The Court’s
decision to grant such permission was well within its discretion and is consistent with the explicit
and well-established provisions of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure (“Rule”) 16(d)(1)
(permitting consideration of ex parte submissions in discovery disputes). So too here. Indeed,
given that the Government’s proposed addendum to its forthcoming public filing would contain
classified information, the grounds for considering that information ex parte are only stronger
than before.
In its opposition (at 2-3), Concord takes issue with the Government’s citation to United
States v. Napue, 834 F.2d 1311, 1320-23 (7th Cir. 1987), for the proposition that a district court
may consider ex parte submissions when determining whether there is “good cause” under Rule
16(d)(1) to “deny, restrict, or defer discovery or inspection, or grant other appropriate relief.”
Napue, which involved concerns about witness safety, stands for that precise proposition. 1 It is

1

Napue explicitly endorsed the trial court’s decision to consider information ex parte:
The district court did not abuse its discretion in making the initial decisions to
allow the ex parte proceedings. In each instance, the court was presented with a
plausible argument by the government that providing [the defendant] with the
information requested would endanger its witnesses and deter them from
testifying. Under such circumstances, the court acted reasonably in asking the
government to explain and support its objections in an ex parte communication.
2

 Case 1:18-cr-00032-DLF Document 82 Filed 12/31/18 Page 3 of 5

likewise well-recognized that a court’s consideration of ex parte information in such discovery
disputes may be especially appropriate when national security is concerned, and this is true
notwithstanding the general rule that ex parte submissions are disfavored. See Rule 16 advisory
committee’s notes (1966 amendment).
Further, as the Government explained in the instant motion, the prejudice to Concord of
an ex parte filing in this instance is further diminished, given that Concord is not entitled to the
information that the Government seeks to provide the Court. 2 And, given that the information is

The court clearly benefited from having this information, but providing it
simultaneously to [the defendant] would have risked revealing the identities of the
witnesses that the government sought to protect. As previously noted, courts have
recognized circumstances such as these as justifying an ex parte proceeding, as do
the notes to Rule 16.
834 F.2d at 1320-21. To be sure, Napue goes on to lament that the district court “did not permit
[the defendant] to respond to the government’s charges” or “allow[] [the defendant] some
opportunity to respond without revealing the witnesses’ identities.” Id. at 1321. The decision
also criticizes the government’s failure “to document its allegations to the court” and “failure to
substantiate its allegations,” calling into question the reliability of its representations. Id. at
1321-22. However, even as to these two “procedural problems,” as the Napue court refers to
them, the court declines to assess error and “decline[s] to impose rigid requirements on a court’s
use of ex parte proceedings” in the context of discovery disputes. Id. at 1321-23.
In contrast to Napue, the Government in this case proposes filing ex parte only a limited
addendum to its public filing, providing additional (but classified) details supporting the
Government’s public arguments, to which Concord may respond. As to the reliability and value
of the information submitted ex parte, the Court is of course free to give that information as
much or as little weight as it sees fit, and the Court can and should take into account the fact that
information presented ex parte is untested by the adversarial process. Indeed, Napue says just
that. Id. at 1322 (deficiencies in the government’s ex parte representations “should be
considered when weighing them against [a defendant’s] discovery needs”).
2

Specifically, the information, which is classified, is either not relevant to the merits of the
case (and thus not discoverable), or, to the extent it is relevant, it is not otherwise “helpful” to the
defense and would properly be withheld from discovery in ex parte proceedings under the
Classified Information Procedures Act (“CIPA”), 18 U.S.C. App. 3 § 4; United States v. Yunis,
867 F.2d 617, 623 (D.C. Cir. 1989). Thus, the Government submits, any prejudice inherent in
providing information ex parte in this instance is inconsequential, as compared to a circumstance
in which Concord might have some other claim to the information.
Concord (at 4) misconstrues the Government’s citation to Yunis in this context. Yunis,
applying CIPA, held that “classified information is not discoverable on a mere showing of
3

 Case 1:18-cr-00032-DLF Document 82 Filed 12/31/18 Page 4 of 5

classified, and that disclosure of the information could cause exceptionally grave damage to the
national security, an ex parte submission is the only means by which the Government can
provide the information to the Court.
For these reasons, and those presented in the Government’s initial filing, the Court should
grant the Government’s motion and permit the ex parte submission of a classified addendum to
the Government’s forthcoming opposition to Concord’s motion.

theoretical relevance in the face of the government’s classified information privilege, but that the
threshold for discovery in this context further requires that a defendant seeking classified
information . . . is entitled only to information that is at least helpful to the defense of the
accused.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The point here is merely that,
even to the extent the Government’s ex parte addendum contains information that is “relevant”
to the merits of the case, Concord would not be entitled to that information, because it is not
“helpful.” The Government is not arguing that Yunis authorizes the Court to consider
information ex parte in resolving Concord’s motion regarding restrictions on discovery. As
noted above, Rule 16(d)(1) provides that authority.
4

 Case 1:18-cr-00032-DLF Document 82 Filed 12/31/18 Page 5 of 5

Respectfully submitted,
ROBERT S. MUELLER, III
Special Counsel

JESSIE K. LIU
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

/s/
Jeannie S. Rhee
L. Rush Atkinson
U.S. Department of Justice
Special Counsel’s Office
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
(202) 616-0800

/s/
Deborah Curtis
Jonathan Kravis
Kathryn Rakoczy
U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Columbia
555 4th Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530
(202) 252-6920

JOHN C. DEMERS
Assistant Attorney General
/s/
Heather N. Alpino
U.S. Department of Justice
National Security Division
950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, D.C. 20530
(202) 514-2000

Dated: December 31, 2018

5