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. W illiam M. Skretny, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), for all pretrial matters and to hear and report upon dispositive motions. Dkt. #13.
The defendant, Shawn Pound, is charged in a multi-count indictment with distribution, receipt and possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). Dkt. #27. He also faces a forfeiture charge. Dkt. #27.
Defendant filed an omnibus motion seeking discovery as well as suppression of evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant issued by the undersigned. Dkt. #25. The suppression motion will be addressed in a separate Report, Recommendation and Order.
The government has filed its response to the foregoing motions. Dkt. ##26 & 29.
Disclosure of Government Informants
The defendant seeks the name, address and criminal record of any informant utilized by the government in its investigation of this case on the ground that much of the government's evidence in this case appears to be based upon information provided by informants or cooperators. Dkt. #25, p.4. The defendant also seeks information regarding any informant's potential bias, consideration, prior testimony, psychiatric and/or drug history and consideration by the government, as well as disclosure of law enforcement's file on an informant. Dkt. #25, p.5.
The government responds that no government informants were utilized during the investigation of the defendant. Dkt. #26, p.6. Therefore, this aspect of defendant's motion is denied as moot.
Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(4)(B) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the defendant seeks notice of the government's intent to use, as evidence-in-chief at trial, any evidence that the defendant may be entitled to discover pursuant to Rule 16. Dkt. #25, p.6.
The government responds that it has satisfied the requirements of Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and exceeded its scope by virtue of its voluntary production of discovery. Dkt. #26, p.6. As a result of these representations by counsel for the government, the defendant's request for Rule 16(a)(1) materials is denied on the basis that it is moot.
The defendant seeks disclosure of all potentially favorable evidence pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). Dkt. #25, p.13.
The government responds that the defendant's definition of information subject to disclosure pursuant to Brady is overbroad, but represents that it has disclosed all material encompassed by Brady/Giglio that is currently in its possession and acknowledges its duty to provide any further information it may obtain. Dkt. #26, p.8.
"[A]s a general rule, Brady and its progeny do not require immediate disclosure of all exculpatory and impeachment material upon request by a defendant." United States v. Coppa, 267 F.3d 132, 146 (2d Cir. 2001). The prosecution is obligated to disclose and turn over Brady material to the defense "in time for its effective use." Id. at 144. Therefore, the government is hereby directed to comply with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals' holding in United States v. Coppa and United States v. Rodriguez, 496 F.3d 221 (2d Cir. 2007), by making timely disclosure of Brady and Giglio materials to the defendant.
Rules 404(b), 608 & 609 of the Federal Rules of Evidence
The defendant seeks disclosure of any evidence to be offered by the prosecution at trial pursuant to Rule 404 (b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence and for pretrial disclosure of any other evidence the government intends to use to impeach the defendant's credibility should he chose to testify, as well as disclosure of all information pertaining to character and/or conduct which may be used to impeach any witness the government intends to call at trial. Dkt. #25, pp.17-18.
The government responds that it will disclose evidence in its possession which might fall within the ambit of Rule 404(b) and provide notice of its intention to rely upon such evidence no later than the deadline set by the trial court. Dkt. #26, p.9. The government notes that it has no obligation to provide a defendant with any information that could be used to impeach him pursuant to Rule 608, but agrees to disclose evidence in its possession which might fall within the ambit ...