DONALD C. RANDOLPH, ESQ., California State Bar Number: 62468
RANDOLPH & LEVANAS
A Professional Corporation
1717 Fourth Street, Third Floor
Santa Monica, California  90401-3319
     Telephone:  (310) 395-7900


Attorney for Defendant
KEVIN DAVID MITNICK


                         UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                        CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,     ) CASE NO. 96-881-MRP
                              )
                              ) SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM RE:
                              ) PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION;
               Plaintiff,     ) [PROPOSED] ORDER
                              )
       vs.                    )
                              )
KEVIN DAVID MITNICK,          )
                              )
                              )
               Defendant.     )
______________________________)




TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD

HEREIN:

     Defendant KEVIN DAVID MITNICK by and through his attorney, Donald

C. Randolph, hereby files this Supplemental Memorandum Re: Petition

for Reconsideration or, Alternatively, for Permission to Appeal.  This

supplemental memorandum seeks to clarify points of law applicable only

to the defendant's request for permission to appeal this matter should

the Court decline to grant the relief sought in the defendant's

Petition for Reconsideration.

     After further investigation, the defense has concluded that the

provisions of Rule 5 Fed.R.App.Proc. concerning permissive appeals

which were cited in its previous petition do not apply in the criminal

context.  Nonetheless, should the Court deny the defendant's petition

for reconsideration of its order, an immediate appeal of this matter

would be appropriate pursuant to the collateral order doctrine. 

United States v. Yellow Freight System, Inc., 637 F.2d 1248 (9th Cir.

1980).  As applied to criminal pretrial orders, this doctrine confers

appellate jurisdiction as of right when:

     1.   The pretrial order fully disposed of the

          appellant's claim of right;

     2.   The appellant's claim is collateral to and

          separable from, the principal issue of guilt or

          innocence (in this case, the defendant's right to

          be free from penalties due to exercise of

          privilege against self-incrimination and his right

          to a fair trial); and

     3.   The order involves an important right that would

          be lost if review had to await final judgment. 

          637 F.2d at 1250-1251.

     Accordingly, the proposed order accompanying the defendant's

Petition for Reconsideration or, in the alternative, permission to

appeal reflects the appropriate considerations mentioned herein.



DATED: June 17, 1998               Respectfully submitted,
                                   RANDOLPH & LEVANAS


                              By:  _________________________
                                   Donald C. Randolph
                                   Attorneys for Defendant
                                   KEVIN DAVID MINTICK


                              [PROPOSED] ORDER

     The defendant's Petition and Supplement thereto having been duly

considered, and good cause having been found, 



IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

     1.   That the parties shall propose an order whereby the defense

shall be provided with a copy of all encrypted discovery in the

government's possession subject to the conditions of an appropriate

non-disclosure agreement.



DATED:    _________________        _____________________________
                                   Honorable Mariana R. Pfaelzer
                                   United States District Judge


ALTERNATIVELY, THIS COURT FINDS:

     1.   That its Order denying the defendant access to encrypted

discovery, unless the defendant decrypts the evidence, is final;

     2.   That the issue of the defendant's right to the encrypted

discovery is collateral to the principal issue of guilt or innocence;

and

     3.   The issue involves important rights which would be lost if

review had to await final judgment.




DATED:    _________________        _____________________________
                                   Honorable Mariana R. Pfaelzer
                                   United States District Judge