USA v. Hardison

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	) 	No. 3:25-CR-48-TAV-DCP
v. 	)
)
BRYAN HARDISON, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
All pretrial motions are referred to the undersigned for disposition or recommendation as
appropriate. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). This case is before the Court on Defendant Bryan Hardison’s pro
se1 Emergency Motion to Expedite Taint (Kastigar-Type) Hearing and for Interim Filter Protocol
(“Motion for Hearing and Filter Measures”) [Doc. 123] and Defendant’s pro se Motion for Court[-]
Ordered Printout of Emails (Attorney-Client/Case Related) from Knox County Detention Facility
(“Motion for Printouts”) [Doc. 138]. These motions relate to Defendant’s Amended (Pro Se)
Motion for Taint (Kastigar-Type) Hearing, Filter Protocol, and Sanctions for Intrusion into
Attorney-Client Email “Motion on Exposed Email” [Doc. 97].2
1 	On September 11, 2025, the undersigned permitted Defendant Hardison to represent
himself, after finding that he knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel [Doc. 51 p. 6].
At Defendant’s request, the Court appointed Attorney Laura Davis as elbow counsel [Id. at 7]. On
November 19, 2025, the undersigned substituted Attorney Mark Brown as elbow counsel for
Defendant Hardison [Doc. 102 pp. 2–3].
2 	The undersigned permitted the late Motion on Exposed Email because “the circumstances
underlying Defendant’s motion [Doc. 97] arose after the expiration of the October 23, 2025 motion
deadline, and Defendant filed the motion [Doc. 97] likely before receiving the Court’s [ruling
denying an extension of the motion deadline and requiring any further motions to be accompanied
by a motion for leave]” [Doc. 103; see Doc. 96 p. 6]. The Court likewise permits the Motion for
Hearing and Filter Measures [Doc. 123] and Motion for Printouts [Doc. 138], although untimely,
because they are related to Defendant’s Motion on Exposed Email [Doc. 97].
Case 3:25-cr-00048-TAV-DCP Document 148 Filed 02/06/26 Page 1 of 6 PageID
#: <pageID>

2
In his Motion on Exposed Email, Defendant asserts that the Government accessed and
viewed privileged email between him and elbow counsel and requests a taint or intrusion hearing,
implementation of filter team measures to ensure information from Defendant’s privileged
communications is not provided to prosecuting attorneys, production of the exposed materials for
in camera review, and sanctions, to include potential dismissal of the case, to neutralize any
prejudice from the Government’s exposure to privileged communications [Doc. 97 pp. 3–4].
Defendant attaches a copy of an October 30, 2025 letter from the prosecuting attorney stating that
the case agent reviewed “a recent email between [Defendant] and [his] elbow counsel, Laura
Davis” [Doc. 97-1 p. 1].3 Defendant also attaches the report of Detective Brandon Stryker, the case
agent, who states that while monitoring Defendant’s jail communications on October 14, 2025, he
saw an email from elbow counsel to Defendant sent on October 13, 2025 [Doc. 97-2 p. 1].
Detective Striker states that he then notified the prosecuting attorney and the jail [Id.].
The Government responded in opposition to the Motion on Exposed Email, arguing that
Defendant waived any privilege by communicating through the jail’s email system, which he knew
was monitored, and that Defendant has not and will not suffer any prejudice from the case agent’s
review of the email [Doc. 117 p. 1]. The Government provides the December 10, 2025 Declaration
of Brandon Stryker, who states he inadvertently saw an email between Defendant and elbow
counsel while reviewing Defendant’s jail communications [Doc. 117-5 ¶ 2]. Detective Stryker
states that the email did not discuss the underlying facts of the investigation and prosecution, nor
3 	The prosecutor’s letter also states that the Government “will ensure that no one else
involved in the investigation or prosecution of this case will review the email and that the case
agent does not further review it” [Doc. 97-1 p. 1]. The prosecutor offers, at Defendant’s request,
to provide Defendant a copy of the email using a filter team unrelated to the prosecution or
investigation [Id.]. The letter also asserts that the prosecutor informed elbow counsel “of the ability
to designate her email account to the jail as associated with a lawyer so that the email
communications with her account are not monitored in the future” [Id.].
Case 3:25-cr-00048-TAV-DCP Document 148 Filed 02/06/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID
#: <pageID>

3
did it discuss anything related to Defendant’s litigation strategy or trial preparations [Id. ¶ 3].
Detective Stryker said his review of the email did not lead to other evidence, nor has he used
information from the email to further his investigation of Defendant [Id. ¶ 4]. Finally, Detective
Stryker says he did not provide the email to the prosecuting attorney, to anyone at the United States
Attorney’s Office, or to anyone involved in this investigation or prosecution [Id. ¶ 4].
Defendant filed two replies to the Government’s response [Docs. 122 & 134]. On
December 12, 2025, Defendant filed a Motion for Hearing and Filter Measures [Doc. 123]. He
states that the Government has acknowledged access to communications between him and his
elbow counsel [Id. at 2]. He maintains that regardless of the ultimate determination on whether
any specific message is privileged, the Court should take immediate measures to prevent further
prejudice, namely (1) sequestering all defense communications on strategy from the prosecution;
(2) preserving records; (3) requiring all prosecutors, agents, and staff to provide sworn declarations
on whether they accessed defense communications and whether they conveyed information to the
prosecution; and (4) preventing the prosecution from reviewing any disputed communications
pending the taint hearing [Id. at 2–3]. Additionally, Defendant asks that the Court “set an expedited
taint hearing” as soon as possible [Id. at 3].
On December 22, 2025, Assistant United States Attorney William A. Roach, Jr., entered a
limited notice of appearance in this case [Doc. 129]. AUSA Roach states that he appears for the
limited purpose of providing the Court, for its in-camera review, the email between Defendant and
elbow counsel that was inadvertently seen by the case agent [Id.]. AUSA Roach also moved to file
the email at issue under seal “due to [Defendant’s] allegation that the document is subject to the
attorney-client privilege” [Doc. 130 p. 1]. The motion states the Government disputes this claim
of privilege but, nevertheless, and “out of an abundance of caution, the United States has instituted
Case 3:25-cr-00048-TAV-DCP Document 148 Filed 02/06/26 Page 3 of 6 PageID
#: <pageID>

4
a taint-review process to review the email and file it in camera for the Court’s review” [Id.]. AUSA
Roach asks that the email be sealed, “with the exception that the Government will provide a copy
to the [D]efendant and to his elbow counsel” [Id.]. The undersigned granted the motion to seal the
email [Doc. 132].
On January 5, 2026, Defendant responded that he did not object to the Court’s in-camera
review of the email, nor to the sealing of the email, but asks that sealed materials be as limited as
possible and that the Court impose a protective filter procedure [Doc. 136 pp. 1–2]. Defendant also
asks the Court to require the sworn declarations of the case agent and the filter attorney, addressing
in writing (1) “who accessed the email and when;” (2) “whether the email was copied, summarized,
or transmitted;” (3) “what firewall exists between any filter personnel and the prosecution team;”
(4) “how the Government will ensure no derivative use of the [the] email occurs;” and (5) “whether
any investigative steps were taken after the email was observed” [Id. at 3]. Defendant also requests
a 	hearing 	or 	a 	briefing 	schedule 	addressing 	the 	issues 	of 	privilege/waiver, 	intrusion,
prejudice/derivative use, and the appropriate remedy [Id. at 4].
On January 7, 2026, Defendant filed the Motion for Printouts, asking that the Court order
the Knox County Detention Center or its vendor that maintains inmate tablets to print and provide
hard copies of all his emails that include attorney-client and/or case-related communications [Doc.
138 pp. 1–2]. Defendant contends he needs printed copies of his email to litigate the email exposure
issue [Id. at 2–3]. He states that when he requested the printout from the jail, he was told that a
court order is required [Id. at 2]. Defendant contends the printout may be limited to emails between
him and elbow counsel Laura Davis and may be further restricted by date [Id. at 4].
The Court has reviewed all the parties’ filings related to the issue of the jail email observed
by Detective Stryker. The Court finds a hearing on this matter is not necessary. The Court also
Case 3:25-cr-00048-TAV-DCP Document 148 Filed 02/06/26 Page 4 of 6 PageID
#: <pageID>

5
finds that the Government’s October 30 letter [Doc. 97-1] and AUSA Roach’s motion to file the
email under seal [Doc. 30] reveal that the Government has enacted filter measures to prevent
further exposure of the email. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Hearing or Filter Measures
[Doc. 123] is DENIED. The Court also finds that Detective Stryker viewed a single email and that
the filter attorney has disclosed that email to Defendant and elbow counsel. 	Thus, Defendant’s
Motion for Printouts [Doc. 138] is also DENIED.
Defendant also asks the Court to require Detective Stryker and the filter attorney to provide
sworn declarations describing what happened after Detective Stryker viewed the email [Doc. 136
p. ]. Detective Stryker’s declaration is already in the record [Doc. 117-5]. But full description of
how the email was handled after Detective Stryker viewed it is not in the record. Accordingly,
AUSA Roach shall provide a sworn declaration describing the “taint-review process” [Doc. 130
p. 1] and answering, to the best of his knowledge, the five questions posed by Defendant: (1) “who
accessed the email and when;” (2) “whether the email was copied, summarized, or transmitted;”
(3) “what firewall exists between any filter personnel and the prosecution team;” (4) “how the
Government will ensure no derivative use of the [the] email occurs;” and (5) “whether any
investigative steps were taken after the email was observed” [Doc. 136 p. 3]. 	The Court also
permits further briefing, as set out below, before ruling on Defendant’s Motion on Exposed Email.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
(1) 	Defendant Bryan Hardison’s pro se Emergency Motion to Expedite
Taint (Kastigar-Type) Hearing and for Interim Filter Protocol [Doc.
123] is DENIED;
(2) 	Defendant’s 	Motion 	for 	Court[-]Ordered 	Printout 	of 	Emails
(Attorney-Client/Case 	Related) 	from 	Knox 	County 	Detention
Facility (“Motion for Printouts”) [Doc. 138] is also DENIED;
Case 3:25-cr-00048-TAV-DCP Document 148 Filed 02/06/26 Page 5 of 6 PageID
#: <pageID>

6
(3) 	Defendant’s request for the sworn declaration of Detective Stryker
is DENIED as moot because Detective Stryker’s Declaration
appears in the record [See Doc. 117-5];
(4) 	Defendant’s request that the Government’s filter attorney provide a
sworn declaration addressing five questions is GRANTED. AUSA
Roach is ORDERED to provide a sworn declaration describing the
taint-review process employed in this case and answering to the best
of his knowledge the five questions posed by Defendant [see Doc.
136 p. 3]. AUSA Roach shall provide this declaration on or before
February 20, 2026, and shall serve a copy on Defendant by mail;
(5) 	Defendant may respond to AUSA Roach’s declaration on or before
March 6, 2026;
(6) 	Thereafter, the Court will take Defendant’s Amended (Pro Se)
Motion for Taint (Kastigar-Type) Hearing, Filter Protocol, and
Sanctions for Intrusion into Attorney-Client Email “Email Intrusion
Motion” [Doc. 97] under advisement; and
(7) 	The Clerk of Court is 	DIRECTED to mail a copy of this
Memorandum and Order to Defendant at his place of detention.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
____________________________
Debra C. Poplin
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:25-cr-00048-TAV-DCP Document 148 Filed 02/06/26 Page 6 of 6 PageID
#: <pageID>