ORDER

CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.

On September 17, 2015, this matter came on for hearing regarding defendants' discovery motion (ECF Nos. 556, 561, 563, 566, 569, 570, 571, 574, 580, 584). Assistant United States Attorneys Richard Bender and Roger Yang appeared for the government. James Greiner appeared for defendant Jason Seigfried, and specially appeared for defendants Reginald Bell, Jay Dupee, and Charles Erickson; Hayes Gable appeared for defendant Anthony Giarusso; Dina Santos appeared for defendant Matt Ortega; Scott Cameron appeared for defendant Justin McMillan; Jason Lawley appeared for defendant Nickolas Perry; Shari Rusk appeared for defendant Marla Ortega; Olaf Hedberg appeared for defendant Travis Olibas; Sam O'Keefe specially appeared for defendant Kevin Kirkpatrick; and William Bonham appeared for defendant Brock Enrico. Defendant Matt Ortega was present; all other defendants have a waiver of appearance on file. Upon review of the filings, arguments of counsel, the Court's in camera review of various documents1, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part, as follows.

A. Background

The Indictment in this case, returned on May 24, 2012, charged thirty-one defendants with various offenses relating to the manufacture of marijuana. The charges stemmed from a lengthy investigation, search warrants, and several court-authorized wiretaps.

B. Discovery Already Provided

On June 8, 2012, the parties signed a stipulated protective order governing the wiretap materials in this case. ECF No. 573 at 2. The government represents that on August 23, 2012, it provided over 7,000 pages of discovery and six discs of wiretap audio. Id. The government further represents that additional material was provided in November, 2012, and June, 2015. Id. In its response to the defendants' motion for discovery, the government agreed to provide documents relative to Request Nos. 2, 3, 5, 14. Id. At the hearing on this matter, the defendants' withdrew Request No. 9 as to redacted page DD-002402.

On October 7, 2015, the court signed second stipulated protective order, governing the non-wiretap material in this case. ECF No. 606. The government has now agreed to produce the bulk of the remaining redacted materials in unredacted form. ECF No. 601. The only substantive issue remaining for resolution at this time is whether the government can continue to properly assert the "informer's privilege" as to information contained in the various materials, including the affidavits in support of the search warrants and wiretap applications, which either directly or indirectly identify the informants. The court concludes that the government has properly invoked its privilege, and should not be required to turn over unredacted copies of all of the documents requested.

To complete the record, however, the undersigned will set forth the various requests, and resolve all of the issues regarding the disputed discovery items.

C. Defendants' Requests:

Broadly speaking, the defendants have requested unredacted copies of all discovery materials.2 The government has opposed the requests in two areas: DEA administrative information regarding file numbers, names, and other internal tracking information3, and information that could lead to the disclosure of their confidential informants. As it relates to each specific request, the court rules as follows:

1. Request No. 1 — Affidavits of agents:

Defendants' motion as to Request No. 1 is granted in part, and denied in part. The motion is granted as to the following information, and the government is ordered to produce unredacted copies of the items, as follows:

DD-000047: paragraph 47, second redaction on line 6, and the redactions on lines 8 and 9

The remainder of the defendants' motion is denied, for the reasons set forth below in Section D.

2. Request No. 2 — Signed, dated minimization instructions:

Defendants' motion as to Request No. 2 is granted as the government does not oppose this request. The government is ordered to provide all materials in unredacted form, forthwith.

3. Request No. 3 — Periodic reports

Defendants' motion as to Request No. 3 is granted as the government does not oppose the request. The government is hereby ordered to provide all materials in unredacted form, forthwith.

4. Request No. 4 — Declaration and application for pen register

Defendants' motion as to Request No. 4 is denied, for the reasons set forth in Section D, below.

5. Request No. 5 — Application for pole cameras

Defendants' motion as to Request No. 5 is granted as the government does not oppose this request. All materials must be provided in unredacted form, forthwith.

6. Request No. 6 — Affidavit for search warrants

Defendants' motion as to Request No. 6 is granted in part, and denied in part. The court has already ordered, and the government represents that it has produced, unredacted copies of pages DD-001358, DD-001364-1365, DD-001367-001368, DD-001381-001397, and DD-001402-001406. The government has also agreed to produce unredacted copies of pages DD-000858 through DD-000860, DD-000879, DD-000898, DD-000900, and DD-000901. If not already produced, all of these documents are order produced, in unredacted form, forthwith. In addition, the court orders the government to provide unredacted copies of other documents as follows4:

As to the remainder of the documents covered by Request No. 6, defendants' motion is denied, for the reasons set forth in Section D, below.

7. Request No. 7 — Reports and surveillance5

Defendants' motion as to Request No. 7 is granted in part, and denied in part, as follows. The government is ordered to provide the following unredacted documents:

As to the remainder of the materials, the defendants' motion is denied for the reasons set forth in Section D, below.

8. Request No. 8 — Drug property collection

Defendants' motion as to Request No. 8 is granted in part, and denied in part. The government has redacted various DEA administrative information from all of the DEA 7 forms ("Reports of Drug Property Collected, Purchased, or Seized") which the court concludes is proper as the defendants have not demonstrated that such information is material. The court has reviewed all of the redactions, and has confirmed that the redacted material is not substantive, but rather bureaucratic in nature. As to DD-002001 and DD-002224, however, the government concedes that the non-administrative information need not be redacted. Thus the court orders that the government provide unredacted copies of DD-002001 and DD-002224.

9. Request No. 9 — Surveillance reports

Defendants' motion as to Request No. 9 is granted. The government is ordered to provide unredacted copies of all reports covered by Request 9.

10. Request No. 10 — IRS Criminal Investigation memoranda of interviews

Defendants' motion as to Request No. 10 is granted. The government is ordered to provide unredacted copies of all items covered by Request No. 10.

11. Request No. 11 — Surveillance reports

Defendants' motion as to Request No. 11 is granted. The government is ordered to provide unredacted copies of all items covered by Request No. 11.

12. Request No. 12 — Arrest investigation reports and narratives

Defendants' motion as to Request No. 12 is granted. The government is ordered to provide unredacted copies of all reports covered by Request No. 12.

13. Request No. 13 — DEA non-drug evidence reports

Defendants' motion as to Request No. 13 is denied. The government has represented that the only redactions on pages DD-002776 through DD-002779 are DEA administrative information, which the court has already concluded is properly withheld. Thus no unredacted copies must be provided.

14. Request No. 14 — Brady material regarding co-defendant Mirante

Defendants' motion as to Request No. 14 is granted as the government does not oppose this request. All such materials must be produced.

15. Request No. 15 — Raw data from pen registers, etc.

Defendants' motion as to Request No. 15 is denied. The government represents that it does not intend to introduce any evidence at trial relating to Request No. 15, beyond what it has already produced. ECF No. 601 at 2. The defendants urge the court to order the government to provide the "raw data" of the pen registers, trap and trace devices, and other investigatory methods. The defendants have failed to demonstrate the materiality of such items, however, beyond a sweeping conclusory statement that such evidence is "material, relevant and critical . . ." ECF No. 575 at 18. This bald assertion is inadequate.11 See United States v. Roybal, 46 F.Supp.3d 1127, 1156 (D.N.M. 2014).

D. Information Which Identifies, Or Could Identify, the Confidential Informants12

Defendants' ask the court to order the government to provide unredacted copies of documents which the government claims contain information provided by confidential informants which either identify the confidential informants directly or could lead to the identification of the confidential informants through the specificity of the information provided. The government argues that it has a right to redact documents to preclude identification of its confidential informants, and has represented that it does not intend to call any of the confidential informants to testify at trial. ECF No. 601 at 1.

In the discovery produced to date, the government has redacted certain information in various documents relating to defendants' motion as to Request Nos. 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, and 12. Since the filing of the instant motion, however, the government has agreed to provide unredacted copies of documents responsive to Request Nos. 9 and 12, resolving those issues. As to Request Nos. 1 (wiretap affidavits), 4 (pen register applications), 6 (search warrant affidavits), and 7 (reports of investigation and surveillance), however, the government continues to assert its "informer's privilege," and urges the court to deny the defendants' motion as to the remaining redactions.

At the outset, the court notes that "[t]here is no general constitutional right to discovery in a criminal case." Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 559, 97 S.Ct. 837, 51 L.Ed.2d 30 (1977). Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure governs criminal discovery. Unlike civil discovery, where some materials are automatically produced as a matter of right, in criminal discovery, the defendant must invoke the right to discovery. Compare Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1) with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a). Additionally, as the government correctly notes, to obtain discovery under Rule 16, a defendant "must make a threshold showing of materiality, which requires a presentation of `facts which would tend to show that the Government is in possession of information helpful to the defense." United States v. Santiago, 46 F.3d 885, 894 (9th Cir. 1995). A "general description of the materials sought or a conclusory argument as to their materiality is insufficient to satisfy the requirements of Rule 16(a)(1)(C)." United States v. Cadet, 727 F.2d 1453, 1468 (9th Cir. 1984).

The government invokes its so-called "informer's privilege," redacting information throughout the discovery implicated by defendants' Request Nos. 1, 4, 6, and 9. The government asserts that the redactions are necessary to protect the identities of the informants, and such protection is authorized under Roviaro and its progeny. See, Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53. (1957). As the Supreme Court explained, "what is usually referred to as the informer's privilege is in reality the Government's privilege to withhold from disclosure the identity of persons who furnish information of violations of law to officers charged with enforcement of that law." Id. at 59. The privilege covers not only the names of informants, but "information that would tend to reveal the identity of the informant." United States v. Napier, 436 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 2006).

The defendant bears the burden of proving that the disclosure of an informant's identity is "essential to a fair determination" of his case. Roviaro at 62. Thus far, the defendants have argued only that discovery of the redacted information is necessary to "test the credibility of the government's witnesses." ECF No. 575 at 2. This is wholly inadequate.

Indeed, even if the defendants were at some point to challenge the search warrants or the wiretaps,13 they would have to make such a challenge under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978).14 To be entitled to Franks hearing, the defendants would be required to "make a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement was deliberately or recklessly included in an affidavit submitted in support of a wiretap order, and the false statement was material to the district court's finding of necessity." United States v. Staves, 383 F.3d 977, 982 (9th Cir. 2004).

Having reviewed the unredacted material in camera, the court confirms that the government has not redacted the information provided by the informants, for the most part, only the information specific to each informant which the government reasonably believes could reveal the identity of that informant. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the court denies the defendants' motion as to Request Nos. 1, 4, 6, and 7 for information which the government has redacted pursuant to its "informer's privilege." The government is not required to produce unredacted copies of the following documents or portions thereof:

E. CONCLUSION

IT IS SO ORDERED.