Case 4:24-cr-00287-O Document 27 Filed 12/09/24 Page 1 of 12 PageID 98
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`FORT WORTH DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
` No. 4:24-CR-287-O
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`NATHAN REIS (01)
`STEPHANIE HOCKRIDGE (02)
` a/k/a STEPHANIE REIS
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES’ OPPOSED MOTION FOR A FILTER DISCOVERY PROTOCOL
`GOVERNING DISCLOSURE OF MATERIAL SUBJECT TO CLAIMS OF PRIVILEGE
`
`
`The United States, by and through the privilege filter team assigned to this case
`
`(the “Filter Team”),1 respectfully moves for entry of a protocol (the “Proposed Protocol,”
`
`attached hereto as a proposed order) to govern the assertion of privilege by the defendants
`
`(“Defendants”) and/or third parties over documents that could potentially garner the
`
`protections of the attorney client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, or another
`
`legally recognized privilege or protection (“potentially protected material” or “PPM”).
`
`The Proposed Protocol permits the Government to fulfill its discovery obligations to all
`
`Defendants and provides an orderly mechanism for ostensible privilege holders to assert a
`
`privilege with specificity, while also narrowing and resolving potential privilege disputes.
`
`The Filter Team circulated the draft motion and proposed protocol to counsel for
`
`each Defendant on November 27, 2024. Counsel provided proposed edits to the Filter Team
`
`
`1 The current Filter Team attorney in this case is DOJ Trial Attorney Lindita V. Ciko Torza. The Filter
`Team attorney is assigned to the U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Fraud Section’s Special
`Matters Unit and has a separate reporting and supervisory chain from the Prosecution Team in this case.
`Further, the Filter Team attorney is supported by paralegals and other professional staff who are not part
`of the Prosecution Team. The Filter Team attorney and her supporting staff only conduct the filter review
`and are not involved in the investigation or proceedings related to the above-captioned matter.
`United States’ Motion for a Filter Discovery Protocol Governing Disclosure of Material
`Subject to Claims of Privilege – Page 1
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:24-cr-00287-O Document 27 Filed 12/09/24 Page 2 of 12 PageID 99
`
`on December 5, 2024. The Filter Team accepted some of the edits and circulated an updated
`
`Proposed Protocol on December 8, 2024 advising counsel that they would file this motion
`
`as opposed should counsel fail to respond by noon on December 9, 2024. As of the time of
`
`the filing of this motion, counsel for Defendants have not informed the Filter Team whether
`
`they agree with or oppose this motion and therefore the Filter Team is filing this motion as
`
`opposed.
`
`I.
`
`Factual Background
`
`A. The Indicted Conduct
`
`On November 14, 2024, a grand jury in the Northern District of Texas returned an
`
`indictment (the “Indictment,” ECF No. 3) charging Defendants Nathan Reis and
`
`Stephanie Hockridge a/k/a Stephanie Reis with conspiracy to commit wire fraud in
`
`violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 and wire fraud in violation 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 2.
`
`Indictment ¶¶ 15–21. The Indictment also included a notice of criminal forfeiture. Id. ¶¶
`
`22–24.
`
`As alleged in the Indictment, Defendants co-founded and co-owned Blueacorn, an
`
`entity that collected and reviewed Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loan
`
`applications as a lender service provider on behalf of various lenders. Id. ¶¶ 8–10.
`
`As also alleged in the Indictment, starting in or around April 2020, and continuing
`
`through in or around May 2021, Defendants conspired to unlawfully enrich themselves
`
`by submitting and causing the submission of false and fraudulent applications for
`
`forgivable PPP loans. Id. ¶¶ 16–17. Specifically, Reis and Hockridge submitted
`
`fraudulent applications for PPP loans for themselves and their businesses that included
`
`United States’ Motion for a Filter Discovery Protocol Governing Disclosure of Material
`Subject to Claims of Privilege – Page 2
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:24-cr-00287-O Document 27 Filed 12/09/24 Page 3 of 12 PageID 100
`
`fabricated tax documents, doctored bank statements, and fabricated payroll records. Id. ¶
`
`18. Defendants collected and reviewed applications from potential borrowers on behalf of
`
`certain lenders and charged borrowers kickbacks based on a percentage of their loans that
`
`were funded, despite knowing that borrowers were prohibited from using PPP loan
`
`proceeds to make such payments. Id. Through its agreement with the lenders for which it
`
`was processing PPP loan applications, Blueacorn received a percentage of the fees the
`
`SBA paid to the lenders for approved PPP loans. Id.
`
`B. The Execution of Search Warrants and the Privilege Filter Review
`
`As part of the investigation that led to the Indictment, the United States executed
`
`several search warrants, through which it seized, among other materials, the contents of
`
`email and iCloud accounts for Reis, Hockridge and others.
`
`Because the Government believed the seized material may contain Potentially
`
`Protected Material, the Government assigned the Filter Team, which is not associated
`
`with the investigation or prosecution of this matter, to identify the Potentially Protected
`
`Material and segregate it from the Prosecution Team so the Prosecution Team would not
`
`be exposed to privileged communications. The Filter Team conducted privilege filter
`
`reviews of the materials; the Filter Team may conduct filter reviews of additional search
`
`warrant returns or other material in the future.2 Through the filter reviews it has
`
`conducted, the Filter Team segregated materials from search warrant returns that the
`
`
`2 The Filter Team has received, and conducted filter reviews, of all search warrant returns pertaining to
`Reis and Hockridge’s email and iCloud accounts, as well as others. The Filter Team is currently
`conducting filter reviews of search warrant returns seized from the email accounts of third parties
`amounting to 1.5 million documents.
`United States’ Motion for a Filter Discovery Protocol Governing Disclosure of Material
`Subject to Claims of Privilege – Page 3
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:24-cr-00287-O Document 27 Filed 12/09/24 Page 4 of 12 PageID 101
`
`Filter Team identified as PPM. That PPM has not been produced in discovery to non-
`
`privilege holder Defendants nor released for the Prosecution Team’s review. Because the
`
`PPM may be subject to privileges held by Blueacorn, Reis, Hockridge or other third
`
`parties, the United States is not at liberty to unilaterally provide the PPM to non-privilege
`
`holders, including Defendants who may otherwise be entitled to it as discovery.
`
`The Filter Team released to the Prosecution Team the materials from the search
`
`warrant returns that the Filter Team identified as non-PPM.
`
`The scope of the PPM identified by the Filter Team encompassed any material
`
`bearing any indicia of privilege or other protection – even if other indicia regarding the
`
`material might suggest that it is not privileged or that an exception to privilege applies.
`
`For example, the Filter Team deemed a communication PPM if a known attorney was a
`
`sender or recipient of the communication, even if other facts might suggest the document
`
`is non-privileged, such as the presence of a third party on the communication or a non-
`
`legal subject matter. The Filter Team’s conservative approach provides potential
`
`privilege holders with a high degree of protection for their materials and leaves the
`
`ultimate determination of whether a particular document is, in fact, legally protected, to
`
`the potential privilege holders or the Court. As a result of the Filter Team’s conservative
`
`approach, certain materials identified as PPM by the Filter Team likely are not, in fact,
`
`privileged or otherwise protected (or are subject to a privilege exception).
`
`The Filter Team seeks entry of the Filter Protocol to facilitate the privilege
`
`assertion process for this filtered material, as well as other PPM that may arise in this
`
`matter.
`
`United States’ Motion for a Filter Discovery Protocol Governing Disclosure of Material
`Subject to Claims of Privilege – Page 4
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:24-cr-00287-O Document 27 Filed 12/09/24 Page 5 of 12 PageID 102
`
`II.
`
`Argument
`
`As described in Section I.B, above, the United States here engaged the Filter Team
`
`to review the materials returned from the search warrants on Reis and Hockridge’s email
`
`and iCloud accounts as well as the emails of other third parties. Filter teams are
`
`commonly used for this purpose in the Fifth Circuit. See, e.g., United States v. Carr, 83
`
`F.4th 267, 271-276 (5th Cir. 2023); Malik v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 619 F. Supp.
`
`3d 652, 656 (N.D. Tex. 2022), aff'd sub nom. Malik v. United States Dep't of Homeland
`
`Sec., 78 F.4th 191 (5th Cir. 2023). The Filter Team has so far withheld from the
`
`Prosecution Team and from Defendants the PPM identified by the Filter Team, because
`
`that material may be privileged. However, some of that material may constitute
`
`discoverable material as to the Defendants under (1) Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
`
`16, (2) Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and its progeny, and/or (3) the Jencks Act
`
`(18 U.S. Code § 3500). The Prosecution Team may also be entitled to review material
`
`presently withheld by the Filter Team as PPM where the material is not, in fact,
`
`privileged.
`
`The proposed Protocol would provide a clear and reliable process to ensure that
`
`(1) potential privilege holders’ valid privileges are respected and (2) non-privileged
`
`materials relevant to this matter are not withheld by the Filter Team from Defendants or
`
`the Prosecution Team. It further would give potential privilege holders a clear process for
`
`satisfying their burden to establish any legal protections over the PPM and would assist
`
`the Court in resolving potential privilege disputes on an item-by-item basis, as applicable
`
`case law requires.
`
`United States’ Motion for a Filter Discovery Protocol Governing Disclosure of Material
`Subject to Claims of Privilege – Page 5
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:24-cr-00287-O Document 27 Filed 12/09/24 Page 6 of 12 PageID 103
`
`A. Defendants and the Prosecution Team Are Entitled to Review Non-PPM.
`
`The United States, of course, maintains discovery obligations to each Defendant.
`
`See, e.g., Brady, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); 18 U.S. Code § 3500; Federal Rule of Criminal
`
`Procedure 16; United States v. Causey, 356 F. Supp. 2d 681, 686–91 (S.D. Tex. 2005).
`
`Those discovery obligations may extend to certain seized materials that are currently
`
`being withheld by the Filter Team as PPM, at least to the extent those materials are not
`
`actually privileged. Indeed, due to the conservative approach taken by the Filter Team
`
`(i.e., withholding documents as PPM based on any indicia of potential privilege, see
`
`discussion above), material currently withheld by the Filter Team as PPM likely contains
`
`material that is not actually privileged or otherwise protected (or over which the relevant
`
`potential privilege holder would choose not to assert privilege). Thus, the United States’
`
`ability to satisfy its discovery obligations in this matter requires determining which of the
`
`materials the Filter Team has withheld are properly subject to potential privilege holders’
`
`assertions of legal protection and which are not. The Prosecution Team, too, has an
`
`interest in reviewing materials that are currently withheld as PPM, where they are not
`
`actually legally protected from disclosure.
`
`Further, while the Filter Team has withheld certain documents as PPM, the
`
`potential privilege holder ultimately has the burden to assert and establish the existence
`
`of a privilege. See Taylor Lohmeyer L. Firm P.L.L.C. v. United States, 957 F.3d 505, 510
`
`(5th Cir. 2020) (“the party asserting the privilege bears the burden of proof”) (citations
`
`United States’ Motion for a Filter Discovery Protocol Governing Disclosure of Material
`Subject to Claims of Privilege – Page 6
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:24-cr-00287-O Document 27 Filed 12/09/24 Page 7 of 12 PageID 104
`
`omitted).3 The potential privilege holder must assert legal protection over individual
`
`documents if he or she wishes to shield a document from disclosure. Indeed, the party
`
`asserting the privilege not only bears the burden of proof, but also “[t]he privilege must
`
`[generally] be specifically asserted with respect to particular documents.” Id. (quoting
`
`United States v. El Paso Co., 682 F.2d 530, 539 (5th Cir. 1982)) (alterations in original).
`
`And it is up to the Court to assess privilege disputes amongst the parties. While the Filter
`
`Team assessed that certain documents are potentially privileged, the Filter Team cannot
`
`adjudicate privilege claims itself, as such adjudication is solely within the Court’s
`
`purview. See Fed. R. Evid. 501.
`
`Here, the Filter Team has withheld more than 700,000 documents belonging to
`
`either of the Defendants as PPM and more than 500,000 documents belonging to other
`
`third parties, but currently has no way of knowing which of those documents the potential
`
`privilege holders would assert are legally protected and which privilege assertions the
`
`Court would find valid. The Protocol would establish which PPM may be produced to
`
`non-privilege holder Defendants.
`
`
`3 Where a potential privilege holder is not a party to the proceedings, courts grant the non-party potential
`privilege holder a limited right to intervene in criminal proceedings to preserve their claim of privilege.
`See In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, 561 F.3d 408, 409 (5th Cir. 2009) (clients of subpoenaed law firm
`permitted to intervene); In re Reyes-Requena, 752 F. Supp. 239, 241 (S.D. Tex. 1990) (upholding third-
`party intervenor’s privilege assertions); see also In re Grand Jury Subp. Dated Dec. 17, 1996, 148 F.3d
`487, 490 (5th Cir. 1998) (“A third party has standing to challenge a grand jury subpoena where the third
`party has a claim of privilege respecting information or materials sought by the subpoena.”) (collecting
`cases).
`United States’ Motion for a Filter Discovery Protocol Governing Disclosure of Material
`Subject to Claims of Privilege – Page 7
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:24-cr-00287-O Document 27 Filed 12/09/24 Page 8 of 12 PageID 105
`
`B. The Protocol Provides an Orderly Process for Privilege Assertion and
`
`Litigation.
`
`With such a large quantity of PPM for which privilege must be asserted and
`
`assessed, an orderly, court-ordered process will best allow the parties to identify and
`
`confer about privilege disputes and the Court to adjudicate such disputes. The Protocol
`
`would provide this.
`
`The Protocol would require the Filter Team to give written notice to a potential
`
`privilege holder when his or her PPM is slated for production to Defendants and release
`
`to the Prosecution Team. Protocol ¶¶ 5.a, 6.b. That notice would include an electronic
`
`index individually identifying the PPM documents. Id. A potential privilege holder would
`
`then be required to provide, within 30 days, individual objections to the production of any
`
`PPM document he or she believes is legally protected, along with a privilege log
`
`containing key facts about each document and the privilege claim. Id. ¶¶ 5.b, 6.c. By
`
`requiring the logging of individual documents on the privilege log, the Protocol would
`
`not allow parties to improperly shield non-legally protected material through blanket
`
`claims of privilege or attorney work product protection.
`
`Incidentally, the Protocol would discourage a potential privilege holder from
`
`asserting a claim of legal protection over a document for the sole purpose of avoiding a
`
`waiver of the privilege or other protection in other proceedings. The Protocol
`
`incorporates Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d), see Protocol ¶ 9, which provides that a
`
`federal court may “order that [a] privilege or protection is not waived by disclosure
`
`connected with the litigation pending before the court – in which event the disclosure is
`
`United States’ Motion for a Filter Discovery Protocol Governing Disclosure of Material
`Subject to Claims of Privilege – Page 8
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:24-cr-00287-O Document 27 Filed 12/09/24 Page 9 of 12 PageID 106
`
`also not a waiver in any other federal or state proceeding.” Consequently, the Protocol
`
`allows the potential privilege holder to focus solely on asserting legal protections for
`
`materials that he or she wishes to shield in this case.
`
`If a Defendant or the Filter Team disagrees with a potential privilege holder’s
`
`assertion of legal protection over a particular document, the Protocol would provide that
`
`the parties must meet and confer within fourteen days in an attempt to resolve their
`
`dispute. Protocol ¶¶ 5.f, 6.g. If the parties cannot fully resolve their dispute, any
`
`remaining disagreements would be raised with the Court on a specified timeline: a
`
`motion to compel within fourteen days, any opposition brief within fourteen days, and a
`
`reply brief within fourteen days. Id. ¶¶ 5.g-i, 6.h-j. This would provide the Court with a
`
`process to efficiently dispense with a hopefully narrowed set of privilege disputes and
`
`allow the United States to proceed with providing access to the Defendants and the
`
`Prosecution Team as to documents that are not legally protected.
`
`The Protocol would provide organized, fair, and balanced procedures for
`
`protecting potential privilege holders’ legitimate assertions of privilege or other
`
`protection, while permitting non-privilege holder Defendants and the Filter Team to
`
`challenge any illegitimate assertions of protection.
`
`C. This District Court and Others Have Approved of the Protocol.
`
`A federal district court may regulate discovery under its inherent authority. See
`
`Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1) and 57(b). Pursuant to the Court’s inherent
`
`powers, the Protocol would establish a process to protect properly asserted privileges and
`
`United States’ Motion for a Filter Discovery Protocol Governing Disclosure of Material
`Subject to Claims of Privilege – Page 9
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:24-cr-00287-O Document 27 Filed 12/09/24 Page 10 of 12 PageID 107
`
`other protections, while authorizing the Filter Team’s production to Defendants and
`
`release to the Prosecution Team of materials that are not actually protected.
`
`Similar protocols to the one proposed by the Filter Team here have been entered in
`
`other Northern District of Texas cases. See, e.g., United States v. Harris et al., Case No.
`
`3:17-cr-00103 (N.D.Tex., Aug., 28, 2017); United States v. Canchola (Case No. 3:19-
`
`CR-473) (N.D. Tex., Nov. 25, 2020); United States v. Comu et al, Case No. 3:19-CR-112
`
`(N.D. Tex., Jan. 8, 2021). Further, courts elsewhere in the Fifth Circuit and in other
`
`jurisdictions, including in the Third, Fourth, and Sixth Circuits, have recently entered
`
`protocols similar to the one sought here. See, e.g., United States v. Satary, 504 F.Supp.3d
`
`544 (E.D. La. Dec. 2, 2020); United States v. Fletcher, No. 2:21-cr-64-DLB-CJS, 2022
`
`WL 1118042 (E.D. Ky. Mar. 8, 2022); United States v. Siefert, No. 2:21-2-DLB-CJS,
`
`2021 WL 3076940 (E.D. Ky. July 19, 2021); United States v. Reifler, No. 1:20-cr-512-1,
`
`2021 WL 2253134 (M.D.N.C. June 2, 2021); United States v. Salahaldeen, No. 3:20-cr-
`
`839, 2021 WL 2549197 (D.N.J. May 7, 2021).
`
`Accordingly, where, as here, a court is faced with criminal litigation involving
`
`potential claims of attorney-client privilege from multiple potential privilege holders,
`
`relating to materials of which some may be discoverable as to the non-privilege holder
`
`defendants, courts have found that protocols like the Protocol proposed here provide a
`
`practical means for narrowing and ultimately resolving such claims.
`
`
`
`
`
`United States’ Motion for a Filter Discovery Protocol Governing Disclosure of Material
`Subject to Claims of Privilege – Page 10
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:24-cr-00287-O Document 27 Filed 12/09/24 Page 11 of 12 PageID 108
`
`III. Conclusion
`
`The proposed Protocol would allow for a fair and efficient process for privilege
`
`assertion, conferral, and, if necessary, litigation, followed by the production of materials
`
`to Defendants and the release of materials to the Prosecution Team as appropriate. For
`
`these reasons and as set forth above, the United States, through the Filter Team,
`
`respectfully requests that this Court order the Protocol effective.
`
`This the 9th day of December, 2024
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`GLENN LEON, CHIEF
`CRIMINAL DIVISION, FRAUD SECTION
`U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
`
`LEIGHA SIMONTON
`UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`By: /s/ Lindita V. Ciko Torza
`LINDITA V. CIKO TORZA (NY Bar #
`5122478)
`Trial Attorney
`United States Department of Justice
`Criminal Division, Fraud Section
`Special Matters Unit
`1400 New York Avenue NW
`Washington, DC 20530
`Tel: (202) 510-0558
`Lindita.ciko.torza@usdoj.gov
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`United States’ Motion for a Filter Discovery Protocol Governing Disclosure of Material
`Subject to Claims of Privilege – Page 11
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:24-cr-00287-O Document 27 Filed 12/09/24 Page 12 of 12 PageID 109
`
`
`
`CLR 47.1B AVERMENT OF CONFERRAL
`
`I HEREBY CERTIFY that I contacted counsel for each Defendant regarding the
`relief sought in this United States’ Motion for a Filter Discovery Protocol Governing
`Disclosure of Material Subject to Claims of Privilege. Counsel for Defendants did not
`respond to the Filter Team’s latest draft Proposed Protocol. Therefore, the Filter Team is
`filing this motion as opposed.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Lindita V. Ciko Torza
`LINDITA V. CIKO TORZA (NY Bar #
`5122478)
`Trial Attorney
`United States Department of Justice
`Criminal Division, Fraud Section
`Special Matters Unit
`1400 New York Avenue NW
`Washington, DC 20530
`Tel: (202) 510-0558
`Lindita.ciko.torza@usdoj.gov
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that, on December 9, 2024, I filed the foregoing with the Clerk of
`the Court using the CM/ECF system.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Lindita V. Ciko Torza
`LINDITA V. CIKO TORZA (NY Bar #
`5122478)
`Trial Attorney
`United States Department of Justice
`Criminal Division, Fraud Section
`Special Matters Unit
`1400 New York Avenue NW
`Washington, DC 20530
`Tel: (202) 510-0558
`Lindita.ciko.torza@usdoj.gov
`
`United States’ Motion for a Filter Discovery Protocol Governing Disclosure of Material
`Subject to Claims of Privilege – Page 12
`
`
`