ORDER

GLORIA M. NAVARRO, Chief District Judge.

Pending before the Court is Defendant Ryan W. Payne's ("Defendant's") Motion regarding Jury Selection (ECF No. 1241). The Government filed a Response. (ECF No. 1364).1

First, Defendant requests that "this Court clarify when it will require Group 2 to participate in the voir dire process." (Mot. Jury Selection 3:18-19, ECF No. 1241). However, parties are never required to participate in voir dire. Currently, the trial for Group 2 (including Defendant) is scheduled to begin 30 days following the conclusion of the trial for Group 1. (See ECF No. 1108). Voir dire will begin on the same day.

Second, Defendant asks that the "Court allow all parties to review and object, or to request additions to the jury questionnaires that will be issued." (Mot. Jury Selection 3:12-22). Defendant incorrectly claims the "Court has allowed the review of jury questionnaires prior to the commencement of trial in other, less complex and less publicized, cases. See, e.g., United States v. Rippie, 2:13-cr-154-GMN-PAL, ECF Nos. 53, 59." (Id. 3:25-26). However, there was no written juror questionnaire in the Rippie case. As such, Defendant has failed to provide any sufficient legal basis for his request. All parties were given a copy of the Court's general voir dire questions and an opportunity to propose specific questions for the juror questionnaire. (See ECF No. 1107).

Third, Defendant requests that the Court "permit 120 minutes of attorney conducted voir dire" for each side. (Mot. Jury Selection 4:2-6). As the Court has explained to the Group 1 codefendants, the Court is conducting voir dire. (See Order on Mot. for Att'y Conducted Voir Dire 2:2, ECF No. 1368). However, as in the trial for Group 1, the Court will allow timed, attorney-conducted questioning during the voir dire process for Group 2. (Id. 2:2-3). Each Defendant's attorney will have fifteen minutes, and the Government will have thirty minutes. (Id. 2:3-4).2

Finally, Defendant "requests that the defense be allowed to exercise 40 peremptory challenges collectively to choose how to distribute among themselves (40 jointly or 8 each, or a combination of those two methods)." (Mot. Jury Selection 5:5-7). The Court declines to grant this request as unnecessarily excessive. The request is also premature. The number of extra peremptory challenges to be allowed will be determined at Calendar Call for Group 2, when it is more apparent exactly how many defendants will actually be proceeding to trial.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion regarding Jury Selection (ECF No. 1241) is GRANTED in part, DENIED in part, consistent with this Order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Melvin D. Bundy's Motion for Joinder (ECF No. 1316) is GRANTED.