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. Richard J. Arcara, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), for all pretrial matters and to hear and report upon dispositive motions.
The defendant, Lamont Oakes ("the defendant"), is charged in a multi-count indictment with having violated Title 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)( C) (Count 1); Title 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1) (Count 2); Title 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (Count 3); and Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) (Count 4). (Docket #1). The indictment also contains a forfeiture count seeking forfeiture of firearms and ammunition pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(d) and 3665 and Title 28 U.S.C. § 2461( c). (Docket #1).
The defendant has filed an omnibus discovery motion wherein he seeks "discovery and inspection; Brady material; disclosure of evidence pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b), 608 and 609; disclosure of witnesses' statements; preservation of rough notes; preservation of potential evidence and the right to make further and additional motions which may be necessitated by the Court's rulings on the relief sought." (Dkt. #9).
In addition to its Response to the defendant's requests, the government has filed a reciprocal motion for discovery pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. (Dkt. #10).
Each of the aforesaid requests will be separately addressed herein.
1. Defendant's Request For "Discovery And Inspection"
The defendant seeks "discovery of any items or information to which [he] is entitled, but was not previously provided" pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(A)(B) and (D). (Dkt. #9, ¶ 14).
The government has responded by stating that "it provided voluntary discovery material presently within its possession that is within the purview of Rule 16 and in compliance with Rule 12(b)(4)(B)" and that "additional discovery will be provided under a separate cover and the government is aware of its ongoing discovery obligations." (Dkt. #10. P. 7).
Based on the government's response, the defendant's request is DENIED as being moot.
2. Defendant's Request For Brady 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.
The government has acknowledged its responsibility under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) and subsequent cases. 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 United States v. Coppa, 2 ...