Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ORDER
The Court takes up the pending issue of the request of Plaintiff for an order to produce for
forensic imaging, certain cell phones used by the staff of the Governor’s office. The oral request
was made during a scheduled status conference, presumably in consideration of the unprecedented
Such requests are not unprecedented and similar arguments were made against such
requests. See State ex rel. K.S. v Burlison¸ SC97114. While the constitutional concerns raised did
not result in the issuance of a writ, the Court finds they merit further consideration not possible
give the time limitations of the end of the current Governor’s term. The Court has also considered
the practical realities of satisfying Plaintiff’s requests, not the least of which are 1) who is to do it
and 2) who is to pay for it, questions which remain unanswered to the satisfaction of the Court.
Finally, the Court, while acknowledging that the Plaintiff’s request might be a better way to look
Having considered the above, the Court has reconsidered its initial impressions and issues
1
1. The names of all people who worked for the Office of Governor, at any time during the term
of Governor Eric Greitens, including the governor himself, who at any time downloaded and/or
used Confide.
2. Corresponding to the above names, Defendants are ordered to identify the a) number of phones
that downloaded and/or used Confide associated with each person identified, b) the make and
model of each phone and, c) the mobile number for each corresponding phone, and d) all
3. For each phone identified, the identity of the current possessor of the phone.
4. The above information is to be affirmed by the Defendants and emailed to Plaintiff by Friday,
5. The information in Paragraphs 1-3 will enable Plaintiff to request documents and information
from Confide, if any, related to those individuals and numbers. Requesting the information
from Confide would enable discovery to proceed against Confide without implicating the
serious constitutional concerns that would arise from an Order confiscating private personal
devices.
6. To address the Court’s concerns about evidence preservation, Defendants are required to
continue to implement the litigation holds currently in place in this litigation. Further, to
preserve evidence, if any, in the possession of outgoing staff members, Defendants are to
issue an additional notification to all current Governor’s Office staff members to preserve
7. Defendants are to secure and preserve any cell phones which are owned by the State of
2 Jon E. Beetem
3