in criminal activity were not followed; and/or (v) any required notification to appropriate authorities of unauthorized criminal activity by Flemmi and/or Bulger was not made. Id. at 387-88. The court in that Order warned the government that: If government agents failed to follow required or customary procedures to record accurately communications with informants relevant to this case, the court will consider the possibility of ordering the government, in the discharge of its Brady obligations, to conduct appropriate interviews as part of its “duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to others acting on the government’s behalf.” Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 437, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 1567, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995); see also, United States v. Hanna, 55 F.3d 1456, 1460-61 (9th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Van Nuys, 707 F.Supp. 465,
holding that government as part of its duty under kyles was required in particular circumstances to inquire about oral unrecorded statements between police officers holding rule 16 does not apply to oral statements other than statements of the defendant holding that defendant did not breach oral agreement because among other things the plaintiff had not established that the term in question was part of the oral contract holding that when the courts oral statements in the plea colloquy conflict with the written agreement the courts oral statements control holding part performance of an oral agreement necessary to take the oral agreement out of the statute of frauds must be consistent only  with the existence of the alleged oral contract