United States v. Deny Mitrovich, 95 F.4th 1064

Deny Mitrovich was indicted in the Northern District of Illinois for possessing child pornography after an international investigation involving the FBI, Australia, and New Zealand.
The unmasking of Mitrovich’s identity came through a technique developed and used by Australian and New Zealand authorities to discover users’ IP addresses on a dark web forum.
Mitrovich sought disclosure of technical details about the software used for the unmasking, claiming it might show illegal malware was used to obtain his IP address.
The U.S. government tried but was unable to obtain the requested technical information from foreign authorities; the district court found the U.S. did not possess or have control over it.
Mitrovich moved for discovery sanctions, claiming violations of Rule 16 and Brady v. Maryland; the district court denied the motion.
Mitrovich appealed the denial, arguing the government was obligated to produce documents it could not obtain from foreign partners.

Issue	Mitrovich's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Obligation to produce foreign-held documents under Rule 16	Rule 16 requires the U.S. to obtain and produce the technical info from foreign partners	Rule 16 does not extend to documents not in U.S. possession, custody, or control	No duty to produce foreign-held documents under Rule 16
Constructive possession for discovery	Joint foreign/U.S. investigation creates constructive possession of documents	Prosecution cannot be required to obtain materials it cannot access	No constructive possession where acquisition is impossible
Brady due process violation for non-disclosure	Failure to provide technical info violates Brady and due process	Brady only applies to evidence in government possession or accessible	No Brady violation if U.S. lacks means to access documents
Prejudice from non-disclosure	Lack of technical info is prejudicial as it could support the defense	Prejudice requires more than speculation, especially with unknown content	No prejudice shown—the claim was speculative

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (Suppression of material evidence favorable to the accused violates due process)
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (Reasonable expectation of privacy crucial to Fourth Amendment analysis)
United States v. Caira, 833 F.3d 803 (No reasonable expectation of privacy in IP address shared while browsing)
United States v. Stokes, 726 F.3d 880 (Fourth Amendment may apply to joint U.S.-foreign operations)
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (Brady disclosure obligations extend to all government partners in the prosecution)
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (Brady principles apply to evidence that may impeach witness credibility)
United States v. Walker, 746 F.3d 300 (Brady obligation extends to all governmental actors assisting the prosecution)
United States v. Gray, 648 F.3d 562 (Definition of ‘prosecutorial team’ for Brady purposes)