United States v. Hinckley

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: March 1, 2019
• Docket: Criminal No. 1981-0306
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STA'l`ES DISTRICT COURT FOR ’I`I'IE DISTRICT Ol`*` COl.JUl\/IBIA § § L E D

MAR ll l 2019

) Cterk, U.S. Dtstrict and

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) Bankruptcy CourtS ) )

v. ) Criniinal l\lo. 81-0306(1’[§) _

)

JOHN W. HINCKLEY, JR., ) )

Dei"endant t' Petitioner. )

) ORDER

On Novetnber 19, 2019__ the Cottrt issued a Minute Order directing the parties to tile on the public docket redacted versions ol" three exhibits [Dl

In response to the Court"s l\/Iinute Ol'de:', the United States [Dkt. No. 667] and the Department of'Behavioral I-Iealth ("‘DBI--I”) [Dkt. No. 668] moved t"or leave to tile under seal their attached notice of filing ot" their redacted expert reports Attached to their sealed motions, the United States and DBI-I filed - also under seal -the proposed redacted versions ot` their expert reports. 'l`he Court granted by l\/lirtute Order the United States’ and DBl-l’s motions for leave to tile under seal on December 20, 2018 and January 8, 2019, respectively Aceordingly, all three expert reports - in their proposed redacted l"orm - and their respective notices of filing

were liled under seal on the docket [Dkt. Nos. 669, 6?0].

Mr. Hinckley’s counsel, Mr. Levine, then objected by email to the filing of the three reports - as redacted by the United States and DBH - on the public docket. In response, the Court ordered [Dkt. No. 672] Mr. Levine to submit a memorandum of law presenting his legal arguments as to why redacted versions of the expert reports should not be filed on the public docket. lOrt February 13, 2019, Mr. I-Iinckley, through counsel, withdrew [Dkt. No. 673] his objections to the filing of the redacted expert reports.

Subsequently, counsel for the United States submitted by email to the Court updated versions of the expert reports that incorporated additional redactions requested by Mr. Levine, which the United States did not oppose. Counsel for DBH also represented by email that it consented to the proposed redactions as agreed between the United States and counsel for Mr. Hinckley. Thus, it appears that all parties have reached agreement as to the final redacted versions of the expert reports.

Accordingly, it is hereby

-ORDERED that the parties shall file the updated redacted reports by Dr. Patterson, Dr. Hugonnet, and Dr. Benesh on the public docket on or before March 15, 2019.

.SO ORDERED.

C§,.a z/j;.).~

PAUL L. FRIEDMAN United States District Judge

DATE; 3 \\\ \¢`