ORDER

GREGORY L. FROST, District Judge.

This matter came on for consideration upon various motions filed by Defendants which remain outstanding and which can be disposed of without a hearing on the matters.

Defendant, Terry J. McNickle, filed a Motion to Exclude Time Under the Speedy Trial Act (ECF No. 42) on June 27, 2014. Defendant, McNickle, requests that the case be designated as complex thereby excluding the time needed to prepare for trial by Defendant's counsel from the speedy trial computation. This Motion was filed before the Waivers of Speedy Trial Act were filed by each of the Defendants. Because the Waivers of Speedy Trial Act were subsequently filed, this Court DENIES Defendant's Motion as now MOOT.

Defendant, Joey L. Jarrell, filed a Motion to Extend Time for Filing Pre-Trial Motions (ECF No. 78) on November 17, 2014. The Court finds that this Motion is not well taken at this time and DENIES the same. If Defendants wish to file additional pre-trial motions (in addition to the many motions already filed) and if Defendants can provide good cause as to why the pre-trial motions could not have been filed before the November 17, 2014 deadline, the Court will then permit additional motions.

Defendants have filed several Demands for Discovery (ECF Nos. 42, 47, and 52), a Motion for Discovery and Disclosure Pursuant to Rule 16 (ECF No. 51), a Motion for Pretrial Disclosure of 404(B) Evidence of Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts (ECF No. 50), and a Motion for Disclosure of Exculpatory and Impeachment Evidence and Notice to the Government of Specific Exculpatory and Impeachment Evidence Requested. (ECF No. 49.) The Government filed a Response to Request for Pretrial Disclosure of Rule 404(b) Evidence. (ECF No. 88.) The Motions and the Response all target discovery obligations required by Rule 16, Fed. R. Crim. P. and Fed. Evid. R. 404(b). Regarding the Demands for Discovery and Rule 16, Fed. R. Crim. P. Motion, this Court expects the parties to cooperate in the mutual disclosure of all discovery and the Court reminds the parties that the rules require reciprocal discovery as well as a continuing duty to disclose. The disclosure of all discovery should have been completed by the date of this Order, however, if any additional discovery has not been provided, this Court ORDERS that it be provided on or before January 7, 2015. The failure to provide discovery will result in the information being excluded at trial. This applies to the Government and Defendants.

The remaining discovery matters pertain to Fed. Evid. R 404(b) materials and evidence of an exculpatory or impeachment nature. Due process requires that the prosecutor in a criminal case disclose to the defendants all exculpatory material that is material to guilt or to punishment. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963). In addition to exculpatory evidence, Brady requires the disclosure of evidence impeaching the testimony of a government witness when the reliability of that witness may be determinative of a criminal defendant's guilt or innocense. Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 153-55 (1972). The Government has responded by indicating that it will provide Rule 404(b) material to Defendants seven days before trial. The Court accepts the Government's position and ORDERS that all Fed. Evid. R. 404(b) materials as well as any Brady or Giglio materials be provided to Defendant's seven (7) days before trial. By providing these materials in advance of the trial date extended interruptions during the trial can be avoided.

Defendants, Terry J. McNickle, Christopher T. Wolfe, Michael L. Johnson, and Joey L. Jarrell filed Motions for Bill of Particulars. (ECF Nos. 63, 67, 79, and 76.) The Government filed a Consolidated Response (ECF No. 84) and Defendant, McNickle, filed a Reply. (ECF No. 90.) The Court finds that the Motions for Bill of Particulars are not well taken and the Court DENIES the same.

A motion for a bill of particulars is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 98-99 (1967); United States v. Salisbury, 983 F.2d 1369, 1375 (6th Cir. 1993). The purpose of a bill of particulars is to remedy vague or indefinite language in the indictment in order to "minimize surprise and assist [the] defendant in obtaining the information needed to prepare a defense and to preclude a second prosecution for the same crimes." United States v. Crayton, 357 f.3d 560, 568 (6th Cir. 2004). However, a bill of particulars is not a vehicle for a defendant to discover the government's theories of the case or to obtain detailed disclosure of the government's evidence prior to trial. Salisbury, 983 F.2d at 1375; United States v. Jones, 678 F.Supp. 1302, 1304 (S.D. Ohio 1988). No bill of particulars should be addressed where the indictment is sufficiently detailed. United States v. Mahar, 801 F.2d 1477, 1503 (6th Cir. 2003). An indictment is sufficiently detailed when it fairly informs the Defendant of the charges against which he must defend and enables him to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of future prosecution for the same offense. Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117 (1974). Generally, an indictment is sufficient when it describes the offense in the words of the statute. Id.

The twenty-two page Indictment filed in this matter charges five Defendants with one count of Conspiracy and one count of Theft of Public Monies. Thereafter there are fourteen counts of Money Laundering. Contrary to the arguments of counsel, the allegations are specific and particularized. The Conspiracy count (Count 1) sets forth three-pages of introduction, twoparagraphs outlining the broad objects of the conspiracy, five-paragraphs of the manner and means allegedly employed by Defendants, and three-pages containing the alleged overt acts committed. The overt acts section is specific as to dates and acts allegedly committed by the individual Defendants as well as the forms allegedly used and the amount of money allegedly received. The Conspiracy count contains allegations incorporating all of the elements of the crime of Conspiracy.

Similarly, the Theft of Public Money count (Count 2) and the Money Laundering counts (Count 3-16) contain all the elements of the crimes charged and contain specifics as to dates, check numbers, and bank accounts. Rather then being vague, this Court finds the Indictment to be surprisingly specific as to the allegations contained therein. The Government's Indictment provides all of the information required and more. The Court recognizes that the defense of this case involves complex legal and factual issues but the information in the Indictment satisfies that which the Government is required to provide.

IT IS SO ORDERED.