It said the motion would include “information related to ongoing investigations.”
Special counsel Jack Smith on Friday asked the judge overseeing former President Donald Trump’s classified documents case to impose a protective order on evidence in the case.
The protective order is meant to ensure that neither Trump nor his presidential valet, Walt Nauta, can release sensitive information obtained during the discovery process.
Trump was indicted on Tuesday on 37 criminal charges related to his handling of classified material after prosecutors said he repeatedly refused to turn over hundreds of documents containing classified information ranging from US nuclear secrets to the nation’s defense capabilities.
The special counsel’s motion said it includes “sensitive and confidential information,” including personally identifiable information, information revealing investigative techniques, nonpublic information about potential witnesses, and personal information on electronic devices and accounts.
Notably, the special counsel also stated that “information related to ongoing investigations could compromise those investigations and reveal information that could identify individuals who have not been charged.”
The filing said the special counsel spoke with attorneys for Trump and Nauta, who did not object to the protective order.
Judge Eileen Cannon sent the case to federal magistrate Bruce Reinhart for consideration.
The proposed language of the protective order, mostly static, states that the evidence turned over to Trump and Nauta “is to be used only in connection with the defense of this case and for no other purpose and in connection with any other proceeding.” , without further order of this Court.”
The proposed order would prevent the defendants from disclosing any evidence to the public. A similar order was sought and issued last month in New York City, where prosecutors expressed concern that Trump would post social media evidence in a separate case awarded to adult film star Stormi Daniels.
Trump has denied any wrongdoing in both cases.
