U.S. v. McGEE, 2:13-mj-0230 AC. (2013)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20130807790
Visitors: 8
Filed: Aug. 06, 2013
Latest Update: Aug. 06, 2013
Summary: ORDER ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge. Defendant has petitioned the court for permanent disclosure to counsel of his Pretrial Services Reports. ECF No. 7. The Local Rules provide that pretrial services reports and related records are the confidential reports and records of the court, to be disclosed to counsel only for the limited purpose of detention hearings. Local Rules 460, 461; see also Vol. 8, Guide to Judiciary Policy 510, 520. Accordingly, counsel are required to return all repor
Summary: ORDER ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge. Defendant has petitioned the court for permanent disclosure to counsel of his Pretrial Services Reports. ECF No. 7. The Local Rules provide that pretrial services reports and related records are the confidential reports and records of the court, to be disclosed to counsel only for the limited purpose of detention hearings. Local Rules 460, 461; see also Vol. 8, Guide to Judiciary Policy 510, 520. Accordingly, counsel are required to return all report..
More
ORDER
ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge.
Defendant has petitioned the court for permanent disclosure to counsel of his Pretrial Services Reports. ECF No. 7. The Local Rules provide that pretrial services reports and related records are the confidential reports and records of the court, to be disclosed to counsel only for the limited purpose of detention hearings. Local Rules 460, 461; see also Vol. 8, Guide to Judiciary Policy §§ 510, 520. Accordingly, counsel are required to return all reports to Pretrial Services at the conclusion of proceedings regarding detention and release. An applicant seeking disclosure of a pretrial services report for other purposes must file a written petition "establishing with particularity the need for specific information in the records." Local Rule 460(b).
Defendant has filed a written petition, but does not identify any particular need for any specific information in the report. He relies instead on the general need, present in every case, for access to information that may assist in effective representation.
Defendant has provided no basis for an exception to the general rule. Accordingly, the motion is denied.
Source: Leagle
