A coalition of news media also filed its own arguments with the court, saying the names should be public.
NEWARK -- The public at this point does not have a right to know the names of the Bridgegate unindicted co-conspirators, federal prosecutors argued in a brief filed late Friday.
U.S. Attorney Paul J. Fishman said the names of those who either knew about the conspiracy to close off access lanes to the George Washington Bridge in Fort Lee or the subsequent coverup were provided as routine discovery materials to defense lawyers in the case.
The public does not have a right to the names "particularly when that disclosure (to the defense) was made solely to aid the defendants in their preparation for trial and that identification is not yet relevant to any decision that might be made by the district court," it said.
Bridgegate lawyer wants Christie's phone
Unindicted co-conspirators are individuals the government believes either knew about the conspiracy to tie up Fort Lee traffic or its coverup.
Former Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Deputy Executive Director Bill Baroni and Bridget Anne Kelly, ex-deputy chief of staff for Gov. Chris Christie face a host of charges related to the September, 2013 lane closings. Another Port Authority political appointee, David Waldstein, has pleaded guilty in the case.
The government's position to not disclose the names is consistent with the stance it took early this year when a coalition of news media, including NJ Advance Media, asked U.S. District Judge Susan D. Wigenton, who is presiding over the case, to unseal the list of names.
But at the same time, the government's new brief conflicts with its earlier letter to the court, which specifically said Wigenton should decide whether the names should be released.
"The sealing request appropriately leaves it to the Court -- not the Government or Defendants -- to determine whether and, if so, when unindicted coconspirator information that has been provided in discovery should be made public," Fishman wrote in a Jan. 15 letter filed in the court.
Wigenton on May 10 ruled that the news media could have access to the list of names, and one of those anonymous unindicted co-conspirators, John Doe, appealed, lost and then asked the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to take up the matter.
Nevertheless, because the government's brief contends the unindicted co-conspirator list is routine discovery material, public disclosure would be "premature, unnecessary and unfair to John Doe... The time may come where the information contained in that letter must become public, but that time is not now.'
John Doe, represented by former prosecutor Jenny Kramer, has until Wednesday to respond to the news media group, which also had a Friday deadline to make its own arguments.
The three parties will have oral arguments in the matter before the Third Circuit June 6.
In the news media legal filings filed Friday, Bruce Rosen, lead attorney for the news media group, charged that John Doe's real complaint is not with the news media, but the government's practice of designating unindicted co-conspirators.
"Doe's challenge amounts to a request that he be permitted to oversee or challenge the government's opinions as to whether uncharged individuals were joint venturers with criminal defendants and whether the evidence supports such a conclusion," Rosen wrote in the media group's brief.
Rosen also repeated arguments made in the case in district court that the letter listing the identities of the unindicted co-conspirators qualifies as part of a "bill of particulars," not discovery materials, and therefore is part of the public record of the case.
The individuals on that list, Rosen wrote, almost certainly are "various elected or appointed officials or political operatives" who had some knowledge of the Bridgegate scheme or knew about its coverup.
Citing case law, Rosen wrote that public employees cannot claim a right of privacy in carrying out their jobs, and political operatives who work closely with them also should not be allowed to claim their privacy rights outweigh the public's First Amendment right to see the court record.
In addition, John Doe's right to due process was respected through the process of arguing his case first at the district level and now at the appellate level, the brief says.
Tim Darragh may be reached at tdarragh@njadvancemedia.com. Follow him on Twitter @timdarragh. Find NJ.com on Facebook.