Case: 1:20-cr-00077-TSB Doc #: 125 Filed: 08/05/22 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: 3540
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : Case No. 1:20-cr-77
:
vs. : Judge Timothy S. Black
:
MATTHEW BORGES (4), :
:
Defendant. :
ORDER GRANTING THE GOVERNMENT’S MOTION
TO AMEND DEFENDANT’S CONDITIONS OF BOND
This case is before the Court on the Government’s motion to amend the conditions
of Defendant’s bond (Doc. 123) and Defendant’s responsive brief (Doc. 124).
On August 2, 2022, the Government filed a motion, advising the Court that
Defendant has created a publicly accessible website relating the instant federal case.
(Doc. 123). Among the information contained on the website, Defendant has posted the
name and image of a confidential source/likely Government witness (“CHS-1”). (Id. at
2). Additionally, Defendant included a hyperlink on his website, directing the public to a
copy of the CHS-1’s 2011 employment file, which file Defendant obtained from the
Franklin County Auditor’s Office, through a records request. (Id. at 2-3). The
employment file contained, inter alia, unredacted copies of CHS-1’s W-4 and I-9 tax
forms, as well as photocopies of CHS-1’s social security card and driver’s license. (Id.)
In sum, Defendant caused the public dissemination of CHS-1’s unredacted
personal information, including: CHS-1’s name, residential addresses, home and cell
phone number, email address, date of birth, employment history, full social security
Case: 1:20-cr-00077-TSB Doc #: 125 Filed: 08/05/22 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: 3541
number, and full driver’s license, as well as the name and phone number of CHS-1’s
father, and the name, phone number, and date of birth of CHS-1’s spouse. (SEALED
Doc. 123-1).
The Government’s motion asserts that Defendant’s decision to publicly post CHS-
1’s personal identifying information was an attempt to intimidate and retaliate against
CHS-1. (Doc. 123 at 3) (citing Eugene Volokh, Crime–Facilitating Speech, 57 STAN. L.
REV. 1095, 1146–47 (2005) (observing that speech revealing social security numbers
“are likely to have virtually no noncriminal uses”)). Accordingly, the Government asks
the Court to modify the conditions of Defendant’s bond, in order “to reduce the risk that
the defendant will again attempt to intimidate CHS-1, including by taking actions that
expose CHS-1 to financial harm.” (Id. at 4).
Defendant responds to the Government’s motion, first noting that the Franklin
County Auditor’s Office failed to redact all of CHS-1’s personal identifying information
before providing access to Defendant. (Doc. 124). Defendant further states that his
“publication of CHS-1’s personal identifying information … was inadvertent, just as it
must have been inadvertent by the Auditor’s Office to [provide access to] that
information in the first place.” (Id. at 1-2). Defendant asserts that his publication of the
information was not intended to intimidate or harass CHS-1. (Id. at 2). Finally,
Defendant states that he does not oppose the Government’s requested amendment to his
bond conditions. (Id.)
As an initial matter, unless Defendant received the employment file and then
posted it without even bothering to glance at it, the Court finds it entirely incredible that
2
Case: 1:20-cr-00077-TSB Doc #: 125 Filed: 08/05/22 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: 3542
Defendant posted the unredacted information inadvertently. The file is over 70 pages
long and repeatedly lists CHS-1’s personal identifying information. And the information
is not discreet. Indeed, page 3 of the file alone includes CHS-1’s name, address, phone
number, spouse’s name, spouse’s phone number, and CHS-1’s social security number, all
of which are listed in large, bold font, at the very of top of the page. It is virtually
impossible for anyone to scroll through the file and not see that it contains unredacted
personal identifiers. Moreover, given the nature of the unredacted information, any
reasonable person would know the potential harm that public dissemination of this
information could cause. And while the Government’s motion focuses on identity theft,
it bears noting that financial harm is by no means the most severe consequence that could
result from publicly exposing and disparaging a confidential government source.
As the motion is unopposed, and in order to ensure the safety and privacy of all
individuals and the public, the Court finds the Government’s request for bond
modification is well-taken. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. (Doc. 123).
Specifically, as a condition of Defendant’s continued release on bond, the Court adds the
following:
Defendant is PROHIBITED from publicly disseminating, in
any manner, or causing the public dissemination, in any
manner, whether directly or indirectly, of any information that
does or can be used to identify, harass, intimidate or harm an
actual or potential Government witness in the instant federal
prosecution.1
1
The prohibition does not apply to identification of any such witnesses in appropriate court
filings, submitted through defense counsel, in compliance with any restrictions set forth in the
federal rules and the Protective Order.
3
Case: 1:20-cr-00077-TSB Doc #: 125 Filed: 08/05/22 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: 3543
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 8/5/2022
Tiimoth
Timothy
hy SS.. B
Black
lack
United SStates
tates District Judge
