A federal judge in Honolulu is expected to rule this week whether documents must be made public detailing what was behind the international extortion plot that targeted Bob Awana, the state’s former administrative director and chief of staff to Gov. Linda Lingle, who resigned suddenly at the end of June.

Rajdatta Patkar, a computer consultant from India who was extradited from Japan to face charges in the case, pleaded guilty earlier this year to a single count of extortion and was sentenced last month to serve a year in prison and a year of supervised release. Due to the length of time since his arrest in Japan last year, he is likely to be released soon and deported to India.

At issue now are at least 786 pages of documents used in the successful prosecution. The documents have remained confidential under a pre-trial agreement between prosecutors and Patkar’s federal public defender, an agreement which was itself filed under seal and kept secret until this month.

Among the disputed records are e-mails that reportedly show Awana was trying to arrange for one or more men from Hawai’i to meet young Filipino women while traveling as part of a state delegation to the Philippines in early 2006. In documents filed in a high court in India, Patkar’s family alleged these contacts involved ’sexual exploitation’ of the women.

Judge Michael Seabright was prompted to take another look at whether to allow disclosure after receiving a Nov. 1 letter from Mark J. Rochester, Associated Press assistant bureau chief for Hawai’i, Northern California, and Northern Nevada, urging full disclosure.

Rochester urged Seabright to consider ‘larger open government concerns,’ including the public’s right to know whether ‘there was any wrongdoing or impropriety’ while Awana was a top Lingle appointee, and whether this case triggered Awana’s unexpected resignation. Lingle has refused to make any comment on the case or her administration’s responses to the case.

Court records are exempt from the federal Freedom of Information Act, but are generally considered public unless a judge finds ‘good cause’ to restrict access.

In a court order directing attorneys on both sides to explain why the documents should continue to be considered secret, Seabright expressed concern that the confidentiality agreement ‘is not broader than necessary under the particular circumstances.’

A week later, on Nov. 13, Seabright ordered several legal documents to be unsealed after removing the victim’s name, including the confidentiality agreement itself and several letters between attorneys which identify, in general terms, the nature of the withheld documents.

The two sides appear far apart on the issue. Assistant U.S. Attorney Clare Connors has asked that all documents made available to the defendant in preparation for trial now be returned to the government or, alternatively, that the existing secrecy order be extended indefinitely.

Federal Public Defender Pamela Byrne, in a response filed in court last week, called the government’s demand unprecedented.

‘This is not a ’state secrets’ case,’ Byrne wrote. ‘This is not a child pornography case. This is a garden variety extortion case in which there is no legal or moral precedent for returning one’s discovery to the federal government.’

However, the documents also include hundreds of pages of additional materials, including the government’s initial mutual legal assistance treaty request that initiated extradition proceedings against Patkar; his statement to police in both English and Japanese; warrants, documents and other items seized when Patkar’s apartment in Japan was searched; and reports by FBI and Japanese investigators. In addition, according to one description, the documents include ‘the e-mails as they were originally forwarded to law enforcement by the victim, the e-mails that comprise the basis of the extortion, letters from Mr. Patkar’s mother and Mr. Patkar, and handwritten notes taken by FBI Assistant Legal Attache, Bruce Strauss,’ along with a CD including all of the e-mails, including those sent by Patkar after Japanese authorities searched his home in February 2006.

On the eve of the Nov. 28 hearing, there appears to be confusion over what is actually covered by the existing confidentiality agreement.

Although all documents have been withheld, the confidentiality agreement, dated June 29, 2007 but only made public in mid-November, appears limited to the documents ’stamped 654 through 745, which were provided to the Federal Public Defender by the United States on April 18, 2007.’

That would leave nearly 700 additional pages available for disclosure, although that appears contrary to the position staked out by prosecutors.

Although prosecutors cite privacy concerns as the reason for continuing to restrict public access to the documents, others wonder whether the Department of Justice is taking special steps to limit potential political damage to Lingle, a popular Republican governor in an otherwise heavily Democratic state.

For more by Ian Lind, visit [ilind.net].

---