Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Rezapour

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

October 3, 2019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
BABAK REZAPOUR, Defendant.

          ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S DISCOVERY MOTIONS

          ROBERT S. LASNIK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter comes before the Court on defendant's four discovery motions: (1) “Motion for Production of Jencks Material and Grand Jury Testimony (Dkt. #32), (2) “Motion for Early Disclosure of Witness Statements” (Dkt. #33), (3) “Motion for Production of Government Expert Material” (Dkt. #35), and (4) “Motion for Discovery” (Dkt. #36). The Court assumes the government understands its discovery obligations under the Constitution, federal and local rules, and applicable case law. Defendant has not shown otherwise. For the reasons discussed below, each of defendant's four discovery motions is DENIED.

         1. Motion for Production of Jencks Material and Grand Jury Testimony (Dkt. #32)

         Defendant requests an order requiring that the government disclose to him all witness statements covered by the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500, and all transcripts of grand jury testimony taken in this matter. Dkt. #32.

         The government has demonstrated understanding of its discovery obligations, “including those required by the Jencks Act.” Dkt. #38 at 3. The government asserts that it has already produced numerous witness statements and that “[d]efendant has not informed [it] of any statements that he believes exist but have not been received.” Id. Further, the government explains that it already ordered the grand jury testimony for this matter, which it will produce to defendant when available. Id.

         The Court assumes that the government is aware of and will continue to comply with its discovery obligations. Defendant has not raised specific evidence to the contrary. Defendant's Motion for Production of Jencks Material and Grand Jury Testimony (Dkt. #32) is therefore DENIED.

         2. Motion for Early Disclosure of Witness Statements (Dkt. #33)

         Defendant requests an order directing the government to disclose to him “all statements, evidence, and testimony by any individual who will testify pursuant to [Federal] Rules of Evidence 413 and 404(b).” Dkt. #33 at 1. Specifically, defendant seeks production of witness statements and evidence related to a July 2017 sexual assault allegation against him. Id. at 2-3.

         The government contends that defendant's request for early disclosure of witness statements under Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 404(b) is duplicative of his Motion for Production of Jencks Material (see Dkt. #32). Dkt. #42 at 1. The Court agrees. The government identifies multiple witness statements and evidence already produced in relation to the 2017 sexual assault allegation, and indicates its intention to continue complying with its discovery obligations under the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Jencks Act. Id. at 2-5.

         The government has demonstrated understanding of and continued compliance with its discovery obligations. Defendant's Motion for Early Disclosure of Witness Statements (Dkt. #33) is therefore DENIED.

         3. Motion for Production of Government Expert Material (Dkt. #35)

         Defendant requests an order directing the government to produce to him written summaries of the expert testimony it intends to offer in its case-in-chief pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 702, 703, or 705. Dkt. #35 at 1.

         The government has shown that it understands its expert discovery obligations. Dkt. #39. Defendant's own motion notes that “[t]he government has been responsive to defense's request and has been giving the defense requested discovery.” Dkt. #35 at 3. The government asserts that it has disclosed expert materials and will continue to comply with its expert discovery obligations. Dkt. #39. The Court finds no basis to question that assertion. Defendant's Motion for Production of Government Expert Material (Dkt. #35) is therefore DENIED.

         4. Motion for ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.