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. John T. Elfvin, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), for all pretrial matters and to hear and report upon dispositive motions. Thereafter, on July 7, 2007 this case was reassigned to Chief Judge Richard J. Arcara.
The defendant, Luther Hayes ("the defendant"), has been charged with violating Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 3, § 924(a)(2) and Title 21 U.S.C. § 844(a) in a multi-count indictment. (Docket #1). He has filed an omnibus discovery motion wherein he seeks (1) "disclosure of the identities of all government informants;" (2) discovery and production of all materials and information to which he is entitled under Rule 16 of the Fed. R. Crim. P.; (3) production of Brady, Giglio and Jencks Material; (4) "disclosure of evidence pursuant to Rules 404(b), 608 and 609 of the Federal Rules of Evidence" ("F.R.E."); (5) "preservation of rough notes and other evidence;" (6) "active counsel participation in voire dire;" (7) "pre-trial production of government summaries;" (8) permission "to voire dire government experts outside the presence of the jury;" (9) "disclosure of grand jury transcripts;" (10) "leave to make other motions." (Docket #12).
The government has filed a response to these requests along with a reciprocal request for discovery pursuant to Rule 16(b) Fed. R. Crim. P. (Docket #16).
Each of the defendant's requests, as well as the government's request, will be separately addressed herein.
1. Defendant's Request For Disclosure Of Identity Of All Government Informants
The government has responded to this request by stating "that there was no informant involvement in this matter." (Docket #16, p. 4). Based on this representation, the defendant's motion is DENIED on the basis that it is moot.
2. Defendant's Request For Production Of Rule 16, Fed. R. Crim. P. Materials And Information
In response to this request, the government advises that it "has fulfilled its obligation under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Evidence*fn1 (sic)" and that it "understands that this obligation is continuing and will comply as any new information or material becomes available." (Docket #16, p. 4). The government also advises 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." (Docket #16, p. 4).
Based on this response, the defendant's motion is DENIED on the basis that it is moot.
4. Defendant's Request For 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 "Jencks" materials as the defendant has used those labels in his motion.
Counsel for the government has acknowledged his responsibility under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and subsequent cases and has stated that the government does not possess any "'exculpatory' material within the contemplation of Brady." (Docket #16. pp. 5-6). The government has also represented that it will comply with the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3500 with respect to production of statements of witnesses called to testify at trial. As a result of these representations, the defendant's request for such materials, i.e., Brady, Giglio and Jencks is DENIED, but the government is hereby directed to comply with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals' holding in ...