RELATED CASE ORDER

KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge.

Just as the court abhors judge-shopping, so does it abhor reverse judge-shopping. That said, careful examination of the above-captioned actions reveals they are not related within the meaning of Local Rule 123(a). That Rule provides, in pertinent part:

While defendant Dumitru Martin focuses substantially on the felony sentencing hearing in case no. 13-cr-269 (the 2013 case), ECF No. 115 at 2-3, and the government focuses on the recent detention hearing in case no. 15-cr-235 (the 2015 case), ECF No. 114 at 1-4, whether or not two actions are related depends on the claims — or more properly here, the charges, the parties, the facts and the questions of law raised in the cases. Martin argues the matters are related because both cases involve the same person, the "contracting officer," identified as JSR in this court's 2013 case, and as CHS-13 in the 2015 case. ECF No. 115 at 2; see also ECF No. 118 at 2. Simply because the same individual plays a role in two separate actions does not support relation.

In the 2013 case, Lida Amin and Nabil Amin each were indicted on one count of conspiracy to bribe a public official, JSR, under 18 U.S.C. § 371. See generally ECF No. 1. While working in Afghanistan from about September 2007 to about February 2008, and later in June 2012, JSR awarded contracts to Lida Amin and other Amin family members in exchange for bribes. Id. at 2. JSR and Lida Amin met in Budapest, Hungary to discuss the details of the conspiracy. Id. at 3. And in furtherance of the conspiracy, Lida Amin established companies and bank accounts in Afghanistan in the names of third parties, and shipped contract goods to Travis Air Force Base. Id. at 5. Lida Amin pled guilty to a felony on June 4, 2014; Nabil Amin pled to a misdemeanor count on a later date. ECF No. 114 at 5 n.3. The case is now closed. JSR is charged in a separate out-of-district case, facing charges in the Northern District of Texas in connection with his having accepted bribes as a contracting official.

In the 2015 case, defendants, including Martin, were charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 201, bribery of a public official. See generally No. 15-235, ECF No. 1. In developing the case, the FBI made use of three Confidential Human Sources (CHS), one of whom was JSR, identified in the 2015 case as CHS-13. Id. at 3. Travis Air Force Base also assisted in the investigation. Id. at 1-2. At this point, given the charges brought against him in Texas, JSR/CHS-13 was working for the FBI while pending sentence for having accepted the bribes as a contracting official that formed the basis of the Amin convictions in the 2013 case. In other words, JSR/CHS-13 was likely highly motivated during the investigation leading to the Martin indictment to reduce his sentencing exposure and, in so many words, save his own skin. With this motivation, under the direction of the FBI, JSR/CHS-13 met with Martin on several occasions regarding contracts to be executed on the Mihail Kogalniceanu Air Base located in Romania. Id. at 1-10.

Although JSR was a potential witness in Amin as he is now in Martin, ECF No. 118 at 2, and though defendants in both cases were or are charged with bribery of a public official or conspiracy to do so, the facts surrounding the charges in the two cases are distinguishable. The defendants in the two cases are different and unrelated. The two actions involve contracts with different air bases and different products, and Martin involves participants other than JSR/CHS-13. Although both cases involve the alleged use of GMX webmail to communicate in order to prevent leaving a record, this fact alone, or in combination with JSR's role, is not sufficient to relate cases.

The fact that JSR/CHS-13 is now a convicted felon and motivated to help the government is a matter of public record, and a fact Martin can use in his defense of the 2015 case and at sentencing if he is convicted or pleads guilty. Relating of the cases is not required for Martin to rely on the record in the 2013 case, or the JSR/CHS-13 case in Texas.

Martin also argues the government was at least required to file a notice of related cases. The Local Rule provides that:

Local Rule 123(b). While the court finds the cases are not related, given the rule's use of the words "may be related" and "shall," the government might have eliminated any argument regarding reverse judge-shopping by filing a notice while at the same time indicating its position that the cases are not and should not be related.

The case of United States v. Martin, No. 2:15-cr-0235-TLN, is not related to the case of United States v. Amin, No. 2:13-cr-0269-KJM, within the meaning of Local Rule 123(a), and will not be reassigned.

IT IS SO ORDERED.