Mootness; People v Cathey

The court held that because defendant had acquiesced to the protective order at issue while the appeal was pending, the appeal was moot. He was charged with multiple crimes. Before he “was bound over for trial, the district court entered a stipulated protective order regarding the discovery of digital evidence at issue in the case, which included hours of police bodycam footage and 911 calls, as well as upwards of 70,000 pages of cell phone records. Defendant’s trial counsel initially agreed to the terms of the protective order. However, defendant retained new counsel after he was bound over for trial. Defendant’s retained counsel moved to compel discovery, asserting that the protective order was overbroad.” The trial court agreed “and entered an order granting the motion to compel discovery and setting aside the district court’s protective order.” The prosecution appealed. While the appeal was pending, defendant “obtained new trial counsel, who signed the protective order.” The court noted that a copy of the order, signed by the parties, was submitted to it after oral argument. Thus, it dismissed the appeal as moot given that it would be impossible for it to fashion an appropriate remedy under the circumstances.