1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

IN RE: Request from the United Kingdom )
Pursuant to the Treaty Between the )
Government of the United States of )
America and the Government of ) M.B.D. No. 11 mc 91078-WGY
the United Kingdom on Mutual )
Assistance in Criminal Matters in )
the Matter of Dolours Price )

Government=s Motion for Continued Impoundment

The United States of America, by and through Assistant U. S. Attorney J ohn T. McNeil,
respectfully submits this motion for continued impoundment of certain enforcement-sensitive
documents in the case captioned above. This constitutes the governments third supplemental
response to the letter submitted by NBC News dated May 6, 2014. [D.80].
At a hearing on this matter on J une 3, 2014, the Court indicated that it intended to issue an
order which would unseal much of the record in this matter, but maintain a limited number of
pleadings under seal for an additional three months. The Court noted that absent some additional
information from the government at the conclusion of the three month period, it would unseal
most, but not all, of the remaining documents which have been impounded in this matter. To the
governments knowledge, the Court has not issued such an order and, as a consequence, the
materials have not been ordered unsealed to date.
The government seeks the continued impoundment of the materials identified on J une 3,
2014, in consultation with the courtroom deputy clerk. Those materials include: D.1-1 (pages
6-20); D.2 (pages 1-2); D.8 (all pages); D.9 (all pages); D.15 (all pages); D.16 (all pages); D.36 (all
attachments to one page motion); D.50 (all pages); D.54 (names in the sealed sidebar transcript);
and D.86 (all pages). The government requests that these materials be maintained under seal until
Case 1:11-mc-91078-WGY Document 93 Filed 09/16/14 Page 1 of 6
2

such time as authorities in the United Kingdom inform the government and the Court that there is
no longer any need for impoundment.
I.
The Central Authority in the United Kingdom requested from the outset that materials
concerning their investigation be maintained in confidence. [D.1; D.2]. The United Kingdom
continues to press the government and this Court for the materials to remain under seal so as not
interfere with their investigation and criminal prosecution of individuals in the United Kingdom.
See Exhibit 1. In particular, they continue to seek that the materials remain impounded to ensure
that evidence (both testimonial and documentary) is not destroyed or altered, and to ensure that
witnesses and investigators are not subject to harassment, reprisals or tampering. Id.
At the initiation of this matter the United Kingdom invoked Section 7 of the US-UK
MLAT, requesting that the scope and nature of their investigation be maintained in confidence.
[D.1; D.2]. See US-UK MLAT at Article 7, 1 (The Requested Party shall, upon request, keep
confidential any information which might indicate that a request has been made or responded to.
If the request cannot be executed without breaching confidentiality, the Requested Party shall so
inform the Requesting Party, which shall then determine the extent to which it wishes the request
to be executed.). Because the United Kingdom invoked this provision, the United States
government sought leave from the Court to proceed ex parte and under seal. [D.1; D.2]. Filing
such materials ex parte and under seal is the accepted manner for executing MLAT requests, and
authorities in the United Kingdom reasonably relied on this longstanding practice. See, e.g. In re
Letter of Request from Crown Prosecution Serv. of United Kingdom, 870 F.2d 686, 693 (D.C. Cir.
1989)(outlining ex parte procedure in MLATs from the United Kingdom); Matos v. Reno, 1996
WL 467519 at 2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 16, 1996) (noting that requests are confidential, and [the
Case 1:11-mc-91078-WGY Document 93 Filed 09/16/14 Page 2 of 6
3

Department of J ustice Office of International Affairs] does not notify actual or potential targets or
subjects of investigations and outlining ex parte procedure).
As anticipated both by the United States government and authorities in the United
Kingdom, the Court granted the governments motion to proceed ex parte and under seal. [D.3].
This Court subsequently noted that, [q]uite properly, this case was filed under seal, citing Article
7 of the US-UK MLAT. United States v. Trustees of Boston Coll., 831 F. Supp. 2d 435, 439 (D.
Mass. 2011) aff'd in part sub nom. In re Request from United Kingdom Pursuant to Treaty
Between Gov't of U.S. & Gov't of United Kingdom on Mut. Assistance in Criminal Matters in the
Matter of Dolours Price, 685 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2012) and aff'd in part, rev'd in part sub nom. In re
Request from the United Kingdom Pursuant to the Treaty between the Gov't of the U.S. & the Gov't
of the United Kingdom on Mut. Assistance in Criminal Matters in the Matter of Dolours Price, 718
F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2013). As a result, the United Kingdom had no reason to withdraw or alter its
MLAT request in order to protect the information which it had submitted to the government and
which was appended to the governments filings with the Court. Likewise, when affidavits and
other sensitive documents were submitted to the Court in support of the litigation, it was done so ex
parte and under seal, both in the district court and in the appellate court. See, e.g. D.8; D.9; D.15;
D.16; D.36; D.49; D.50; D.60. The Court continued to grant the governments motions to so
submit this material. Id.
1

Unsealing these documents at this time, absent the consent of authorities in the United
Kingdom, is contrary to the terms and spirit of Article 7, 1 of the US-UK MLAT, and would work
a fundamental unfairness on our treaty partner. Authorities in the United Kingdom reasonably

1
Notably, the First Circuit was untroubled by the fact that a number of the documents which were submitted to the
district court were submitted ex parte and under seal, and remained under seal even at the appellate stage. In re
Request from United Kingdom Pursuant to Treaty Between Gov't of U.S. & Gov't of United Kingdom on Mut.
Assistance in Criminal Matters in the Matter of Dolours Price, 685 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 2012) cert. denied, 133 S. Ct.
1796, 185 L. Ed. 2d 856 (U.S. 2013)
Case 1:11-mc-91078-WGY Document 93 Filed 09/16/14 Page 3 of 6
4

relied on this Courts acceptance of MLAT materials ex parte and under seal. They have no
ability at this stage to invoke the safe harbor provision of the US-UK MLAT, which ordinarily
permits them to withdraw their request to protect sensitive information. US-UK MLAT at Article
7, 1. Since this remedy is no longer available, the United States owes a continued obligation to
the United Kingdom to honor its invocation of the confidentiality provisions of the US-UK
MLAT.
Moreover, in concluding that it was an appropriate time to unseal material in this matter,
the Court noted that, this case is over, and that it was therefore appropriate for the Court, to see
that matters all be unsealed. See Hearing Transcript (J une 3, 2014) at 6. As a general matter it
is important to unseal records filed with the Court at the conclusion of a case. See, e.g. United
States v. Kravetz, 706 F.3d 47, 52 (1st Cir. 2013). As a result, the government has worked with
Boston College and the Clerks Office to identify much of the sealed record which could be made
available to the public with no concomitant harm. However, the United Kingdoms investigation
and enforcement efforts are far from over, and the unilateral unsealing of a narrow set of
documents which were submitted to the United States government in confidence, could have
significant negative ramifications in this and other cases.
The request of the United Kingdom to maintain these matters under seal is grounded in its
concern that premature release could work an injustice in that country. See Exhibit 1; Hearing
Transcript (J une 3, 2014) at 8. Among other things, at least one individual has been charged and
another individual is under consideration for prosecution. See Exhibit 1; [D.86]. The release of
enforcement-sensitive information could unfairly prejudice those matters.
Moreover, the documents which remain under seal include the identities of witnesses and
other individuals who have not been charged in this matter. The public release of this information
Case 1:11-mc-91078-WGY Document 93 Filed 09/16/14 Page 4 of 6
5

at any point could unfairly stigmatize or tarnish the reputations of those individuals and cause them
to be subject to harassment or retribution. Similarly, the impounded documents include
identifying information about one or more individuals in the United Kingdom who have been
involved in the investigation of these matters. According to authorities in the United Kingdom,
because of the sensitive nature of the investigations being conducted by these individuals,
documents filed in that country typically shield the identities of those law enforcement officers and
identify them by number rather than by name. See Exhibit 1. Authorities in the United Kingdom
have requested that the identities of the officer(s) be protected so that they are not subject to
reprisals for their involvement in these investigations. Id.
The impounded documents also include allegations supported by probable cause, but
which have not yet been proven in a court of law, or been assessed by a judicial officer. [D.1;
D.2; D.9; D.50]. The public release of such allegations could have ramifications in a foreign
country which are not fully appreciated here. As a result, to the extent permissible, the Court
should defer to the assessment of the authorities in the United Kingdom.
Finally, because the US-UK MLAT is a bilateral agreement, the unsealing of this material
over the objection of our treaty partner could substantially inhibit this countrys ability to obtain
evidence and other information from the United Kingdom in confidence. See In re Letter of
Request from Crown Prosecution Serv. of United Kingdom, 870 F.2d at 690 (the expectation or
hope [in passing the predecessor MLAT statute] was that by making assistance generously
available through the good offices of United States officials and courts, our country would set an
example foreign courts and authorities could follow when asked to render aid to United States
courts, authorities, and litigators.) The unsealing of material in this case could cause our treaty
partner to unseal our enforcement-sensitive requests without regard to the impact on our ongoing
Case 1:11-mc-91078-WGY Document 93 Filed 09/16/14 Page 5 of 6
6

investigations and prosecutions. Id. Likewise, such unsealing over the objection of a treaty
partner could damage mutually beneficial agreements with other treaty partners.
Conclusion
Until such time as authorities in the United Kingdom inform the Court that impoundment is
no longer necessary, the Court should maintain those documents specified under seal. To do
otherwise would conflict with Article 7 of the US-UK MLAT, work a fundamental unfairness on
our treaty partner, risk prejudicing matters in the United Kingdom, and damage the United States
ability to obtain evidence in foreign countries without prematurely exposing sensitive law
enforcement information.

Respectfully submitted,

CARMEN M. ORTIZ
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

Date: September 16, 2014 By: s/ John T. McNeil
J ohn T. McNeil
Assistant United States Attorney



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that this document filed through the ECF system will be sent electronically
to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF).

s/ John T. McNeil
J ohn T. McNeil
Assistant United States Attorney

Case 1:11-mc-91078-WGY Document 93 Filed 09/16/14 Page 6 of 6