United States v. Blouin
2:16-cr-00307
W.D. Wash.Jun 14, 2017Background
- Defendant Douglas Blouin indicted for attempted receipt, receipt, and possession of child pornography based on files allegedly downloaded via a law‑enforcement modified eMule client called RoundUp eMule.
- RoundUp eMule searches eDonkey/KAD P2P network for known child‑pornography file hash values from a law‑enforcement database and records matches in a shared “download candidate” database; RoundUp downloads from a single source for attribution.
- Agents using RoundUp eMule allegedly downloaded 12 videos and 2 images from an IP address associated with Blouin; a subsequent search recovered one image and forensic evidence that the defendant had recently wiped his computer.
- Defense moved to compel production of: (1) the law‑enforcement hash database; (2) the download candidate database; (3) the RoundUp eMule source code; (4) network/design docs and user manuals; and (5) validation test results.
- The government produced a user manual, provided the specific 14 hash values and dates they were added, and gave search results showing where Blouin’s IP appeared in the download candidate database; it stated no independent validation testing or formal network/design docs exist.
- The Court granted the motion in part and denied it in part: limited production of relevant hash values and download‑candidate search results, but denied disclosure of the RoundUp source code and any broader databases or materials not shown to be material.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of hash‑value database production | Gov: only hashes relevant to this case are material | Blouin: entire law‑enforcement hash database needed for defense | Court: produce only the hashes relevant to the 14 files; govt provided spreadsheet — no more required |
| Download‑candidate database disclosure | Gov: already produced search results for Blouin’s IP; broader disclosure unnecessary | Blouin: wants full database (or access) to examine leads/ties to others | Court: denied broad production; access limited to results showing Blouin’s IP; no need to divulge other leads |
| Disclosure of RoundUp eMule source code | Gov: disclosure would risk surveillance integrity and is not required absent a specific showing | Blouin: relies on Budziak to demand source code to test government tool reliability | Court: denied; defendant failed to show evidence of govt wrongdoing or that source code is material as in Budziak; disclosure would compromise surveillance |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Budziak, 697 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.) (source‑code disclosure required where defendant showed factual basis suggesting tool could alter file fragments or sharing settings)
- United States v. Pirosko, 787 F.3d 358 (6th Cir.) (affirming denial of source‑code disclosure absent evidence of government misconduct)
- United States v. Soto‑Zuniga, 837 F.3d 992 (9th Cir.) (discovery of checkpoint statistics deemed material in Fourth Amendment context; distinguished here as inapposite to source code discovery)