United States District Court, D. Nevada
FERENBACH, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the court are Desage's motion for discovery (ECF No. 150)
and the Government's response (ECF No. 185). As of
February 28, 2017, Desage has not filed a reply. For the
reasons stated below, Desage's motion is granted in part
and denied in part.
[Federal] Rule [of Criminal Procedure] 16 does not expressly
mandate the disclose of nonexpert witnesses, it is
no inconsistent with Rule 16 and Rule 2 for a court to order
the government to produce a list of such witnesses as a
matter of its discretion.” United States v. W.R.
Grace, 526 F.3d 499, 510 (9th Cir. 2008)(en
banc)(emphasis in original). “The rule does not
entitle the defendant to a list of such witnesses, but by the
same token it does not suggest that a district court is
prohibited from ordering such disclosure.”
Id. at 511 (emphasis in original).
Government has agreed to provide a complete list of witnesses
approximately 7 days before trial at Calendar Call. (ECF No.
185 at 7) Given the complexity of this action and the number
of potential witnesses involved, the court orders that the
Government provide its witness list 30 days before trial.
See W.R. Grace, 526 F.3d at 514 (holding that it was
not an abuse of the trial court's discretion to order
disclosure of a nonexpert witness list one year before
Exhibit List and Copies
nonexpert witness disclosures, Rule 16 does not mandate nor
does it prohibit pretrial disclosure of the Government's
exhibit list. Id. In its response, the Government
agreed to provide an itemized exhibit list at Calendar Call.
(ECF No. 185 at 7) Given the large number of documents
involved in this action, the court orders that the Government
provide its itemized exhibit list and appropriate copies 30
days before trial.
Other Requested Discovery
Bill of Particulars
court may direct the government to file a bill of
particulars.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(f).
The purpose of a bill of particulars are threefold:
‘ To inform the defendant of the nature of the
charges against him with sufficient precision to enable him
to prepare for trial,  to avoid or minimize the danger of
surprise at the time of trial, and  to enable him to plead
his acquittal or conviction in bar of another prosecution for
the same offense when the indictment itself is too vague and
indefinite for such purposes.' United States v.
Ayers, 924 F.2d 1468, 1483 (9th Cir. 1991)(quoting
United States v.
Giese, 597 F.2d 1170, 1180 (9th Cir. 1979). After
reviewing the operative indictment, the court concludes a
bill of particulars is unnecessary. Desage has sufficient
information about his alleged victims, his alleged conduct,
and the timeframe for which he is being indicted in order to
understand the charges against him and prepare for trial.
(ECF No. 60)
Identities of ...