PEGGY A. LEEN, Magistrate Judge.
This amended order corrects a scrivener's error on the last page of the original Order (ECF No. 2700) regarding the witnesses' travel, lodging, and/or expenses.
This matter is before the court on Defendant Ryan W. Payne's Sealed Ex Parte Motions for Subpoenas (ECF Nos. 2686, 2687, 2688), which were filed pursuant to Rule 17 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and LCR 17-1 of the Local Criminal Rules of Practice. These motions are referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and LR IB 1-3 and 1-7(g) of the Local Rules of Practice.
The motions ask the court to issue subpoenas to three employees of the Bureau of Land Management to compel their testimony in an evidentiary hearing before the Honorable Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on Monday, October 23, 2017, at 9:00 a.m. The court has reviewed the motions and finds that Mr. Payne has met his threshold burden under Rule 17 for issuance of the subpoenas. In addition, the court has already found that Mr. Payne is indigent. Accordingly, the court will grant the motions and issue the subpoenas to the following individuals: Kent Kleman, Danielle Cardenas, and Toni Suminski. In granting the request, the court expresses no opinion regarding the admissibility of the scope of the witnesses' proposed testimony as that is an issue for Judge Navarro to consider.
However, the court does not find good cause for the motions or this order to remain ex parte and under seal. See Nixon v. Warner Comm'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978) (recognizing "a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents."). Although ex parte applications are permissible in limited circumstances, they are generally disfavored. United States v. Daniels, 95 F.Supp.2d 1160, 1162-63 (D. Kan. 2000) (ex parte applications permissible where source or integrity of evidence would be imperiled or trial strategy disclosed); United States v. Tomison, 969 F.Supp. 587, 589-95 (E.D. Cal. 1997) (ex parte applications permitted where a subpoena served on third party and notice would compromise trial strategy). In two recent motions (ECF Nos. 2613, 2696), defense counsel informed the court and the government of their intent to subpoena these individuals as witnesses for purposes of this evidentiary hearing. Thus, disclosure to opposing counsel will not compromise defense strategy. The Clerk of the Court will be directed to unseal the motions.
Accordingly,