The opinion of the court was delivered by: H. Kenneth Schroeder, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge
This case was referred to the undersigned by the Hon. William M. Skretny, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), for all pretrial matters and to hear and report upon dispositive motions.
The defendant, Tony Rookard ("the defendant"), is charged in a multicount indictment with having violated Title 18 of the United States Code, Sections 922(g)(1) and 922(k) and Title 21 of the United States Code, Section 844(a). (Docket No. 7).
The defendant has filed an omnibus discovery motion (Docket #12) wherein he seeks: (1) "Disclosure of the Identities of All Government Informants;" (2) "discovery of all items or information to which the defendant is entitled" pursuant to Rule 16 of the Fed. R. Crim. P.; (3) production of Brady material; (4) "disclosure of evidence pursuant to Rules 404(b), 608 and 609 of the Federal Rules of Evidence" ("F.R.E."); (5) "disclosure of witness statements" pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3500; (6) "preservation of rough notes and other evidence;" (7) "active counsel participation in voire dire;" (8) "pre-trial production of government summaries;" (9) permission "to voire dire government experts outside the presence of the jury;" (10) "disclosure of grand jury transcripts;" and (11) "leave to make other motions."
The government has filed a response to these requests. (Docket #15).
1. Defendant's Request For Disclosure of Identities of Informants:
In response to this request, the government advises "that there was no informant involvement in this matter." (Docket #15, pp. 4-5). As a result, defendant's motion is DENIED on the basis that it is moot.
2. Defendant's Request For Rule 16 Materials:
The government has responded to this request by stating that it "has fulfilled its obligation under Rule 16 of the F.R.E. regarding discoverable material" and that it will continue to "comply as any new information or material becomes available." (Docket #15, p. 5). The government also states that it "will forward to the defense the identity of expert witnesses, as well as their background and summaries of testimony as they become available." In this context, the government has disclosed the identity of three "anticipated" expert witnesses and what they will testify about in their capacities as experts. (Docket #15, p. 5).
Based on these representations, the defendant's motion is DENIED on the basis that it is moot.
3. Production Of Brady, Giglio and Jencks Material:
The defendant has made a broad request for any and all materials and/or information, including a culling of government agent personnel files, that would be "exculpatory" to the defendant which the Court interprets as a broad request for "Brady," "Giglio" and ...