is relevant to the instant case. Id., at 974-975. “Acceptance of the language for just what it says is dictated by the fundamental fairness of granting the accused equal access to his own words, no matter how the government came by them.” Id., (quoting United States v. Caldwell, 543 F.2d 1333, 1353 (D.C.Cir.1974)). Despite the opportunity afforded to it by the Court, the Government has not addressed Rule 16’s application to the Defendant’s Motion. “Ordinarily, a statement made by the defendant during the course of the investigation of the crime charged should be presumed to be subject to disclosure, unless it is clear that the statement cannot be relevant.” United States v. Bailleaux, 685 F.2d 1105, 1114 (9th Cir.1982); see also United States v. Isa, 413 F.2d 244, 248 (7th Cir.1969) (<HOLDING>). The statements at issue are relevant. Not
holding that a protective order granted pursuant to federal rule of civil procedure 26c should not be modified absent a showing of improvidence in the grant of the order or some extraordinary circumstance or compelling need holding that threats made in the presence of a law enforcement officer were sufficient evidence to indicate an intent to communicate because the victim had a protective order against the defendant and the defendant had just violated that order holding that when a courts statements from the bench conflict with its written order the order controls holding that a defendant has the right to an order permitting him to inspect his own written or recorded statements absent a basis for a protective order holding that production of documents without seeking a protective order waives the right to such an order unless there is a showing of good cause for the delay