Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

United States v. Wirth

United States District Court for the District of Minnesota

April 3, 2012, Decided; April 3, 2012, Filed

Crim. No. 11-256 ADM/JJK

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the undersigned United States District Judge for a ruling on the Plaintiff United States of America's (the "Government") Appeal of Magistrate Judge's Order to Disclose Agents' Rough Notes and Drafts of Interview Memoranda [Docket No. 126] (the "Appeal"). The Government appeals, in part, Magistrate Judge Jeffrey J. Keyes' Orders dated February 17, 2012 [Docket Nos. 119, 121, 122]. Specifically, the Government appeals Judge Keyes' grant in  [*2] part and denial in part of Defendant Jeffrey John Wirth's ("Wirth") Motion to Compel Specific Rule 16(a) and Brady Material [Docket No. 86], Defendant Michael James Murry's ("Murry") Motion [to] Compel Production of Brady and Rule 16 Materials [Docket No. 87], and Defendant Holly Claire Damiani's ("Damiani") oral motion to join Wirth's motion. For the reasons set forth below, the Appeal is denied.

II. BACKGROUND

On August 17, 2011, an Indictment [Docket No. 1] was filed charging Defendants Wirth, Damiani, and Murry with crimes related to tax evasion. On November 4, 2011, Wirth sought leave to file a motion for a bill of particulars. See Mot. for Leave to File a Mot. For Bill of Particulars [Docket No. 39]. On November 17, 2011, Murry also sought leave to file a motion for a bill of particulars. See Def. Murry's Mot. for Leave to File a Mot. for Bill of Particulars [Docket No. 52].

By Order [Docket No. 61] dated December 20, 2011, Judge Keyes denied Wirth and Murry's motions reasoning that the Indictment provided sufficient notice of the charges against them and Wirth and Murry's requests were more akin to discovery than a bill of particulars. Dec. 20, 2011 Order at 4-9. In doing so, Judge  [*3] Keyes expressly noted he was not addressing any issues regarding the Government's compliance with Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Id. at 9-10 n.1.

Heeding Judge Keyes' distinction, discovery motions followed. Relevant to the present Appeal, Wirth moved for an order compelling production of rough notes from each interview conducted by the Government in connection with this case and all draft interview summaries in electronic format with metadata intact. Def. Jeffrey John Wirth's Mot. to Compel Specific Rule 16(a) & Brady Material 1. Likewise, Murry moved to compel production of materials subject to disclosure under Rule 16 and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963), generally, and joined in Wirth's motion for specific disclosures. See Def. Murry's Mot. [to] Compel Production of Brady & Rule 16 Materials [Docket No. 87]; Def. Murry's Mot. to Join Jeffrey Wirth's Mot. to Compel Specific Rule 16(a) & Brady Materials [Docket No. 89]. Judge Keyes granted the motions to the extent the motions and summaries related to interviewees that would testify as witnesses. Judge Keyes further noted that the motions were granted to the extent they conform with Rules 12 and 16, and Brady  [*4] and its progeny, but denied to the extent they required disclosure of material protected from disclosure by the Jencks Act or work-product doctrine. The Government's Appeal followed.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47360 *; 2012 WL 1110540

United States of America, Plaintiff, v. (1) Jeffrey John Wirth, (2) Holly Claire Damiani, f/k/a Holly Claire Wirth, and (3) Michael James Murry, Defendants.

Subsequent History: Later proceeding at United States v. Wirth, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62531 (D. Minn., May 4, 2012)

CORE TERMS

disclosure, work product, rough, work-product, discovery, interview, electronic, obligations, metadata, motions, subject to disclosure, bill of particulars, Jencks Act, exculpatory