US v. Fort, No. 06-10473 (1-8-07). The 9th issues a very bad discovery order expanding the scope of protected discovery for work product to state police investigative reports that were turned over to the US Attorney for their investigation. The 9th reverses a district court protective order that had disclosure when the government thumbed its nose at the court's request for assistance in drafting. Graber, joined by Tallman, reasoned that the reports fell under work product and analysis. This case itself dealt with an alleged violent gang in a project. Dissenting, W. Fletcher takes the majority to task for confusing work product with concerns about disclosure. This order is badly reasoned and flawed.