DANETA WOLLMANN, Magistrate Judge.
Pending is Defendant Mason Hamm's Motion for Pretrial Identification of Photographic and Video Exhibits (Doc. 35). United States District Court Judge Jeffrey L. Viken, Chief Judge, referred Mr. Hamm's Motion to this magistrate judge for determination. (Doc. 42).
Under the Court's current scheduling order, Mr. Hamm's trial is set for January 30, 2018, and his pretrial conference is set for January 22, 2018. (Doc. 24). Mr. Hamm requests that the government identify which discovery items it intends to use in its case-in-chief by January 12, 2018. In support of his motion, Mr. Hamm argues that the photographic and video records in his case are enormous, and pretrial identification of the government's intended exhibits will promote a fair and efficient trial. Without such identification, Mr. Hamm argues he will be unable to address the admissibility of certain items before the pretrial conference.
The government responds that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(1)(E) does not require the government to specifically identify which items it intends to use in its case-in-chief. The government further responds that it will provide the Court with a copy of its exhibits by noon on January 19, 2018, pursuant to the current scheduling order. The government additionally states that it provided Mr. Hamm with discovery in February 2017, allowing him nearly a year to review the documents; moreover, by providing discovery obtained through search warrants, the government has not intended to overwhelm Mr. Hamm with irrelevant materials.
District courts have broad discretion to resolve motions to compel discovery in criminal cases.
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 governs pre-trial disclosure obligations, and requires the government to provide discovery of three categories of items within its custody or control: items "material to preparing the defense"; documents that "the government intends to use . . . in its case-in-chief at trial"; and items "obtained from or belong[ing] to the defendant." Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(E).
Little authority exists within the Eighth Circuit on Mr. Hamm's specific request—namely, that Rule 16(a)(1)(E)(ii) requires the government to disclose photos and videos it intends to use in its case-in-chief. Eighth Circuit cases addressing Rule 16 have found that defendants have no right to disclosures prior to the timeframes set out in the Rule.
Some district courts have held that "Rule 16 does not entitle a defendant to pretrial disclosure of the government's exhibit list."
Other district courts have ordered the prosecution to identify the documents it intends to offer in its case in chief.
The court possess the authority to regulate discovery under Rule 16(d)(1). "At any time the court may, for good cause. . . grant other appropriate relief." Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(d)(1). Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 2 provides that "[t]hese rules are to be interpreted to provide for the just determination of every criminal proceeding, to secure simplicity in procedure and fairness in administration, and to eliminate unjustifiable expense and delay." As Mr. Hamm indicates in his motion, the amount of discovery in this case is voluminous. Requiring the government to provide Mr. Hamm with a pretrial exhibit list by January 12, 2018 comports with Rule 2 and Rule 16's policy directives. Furthermore, although applicable case law states a defendant has no right to early disclosure of a pretrial exhibit list, granting such a motion in the interests of justice nonetheless falls within the court's discretion.
Based on the foregoing law and analysis, it is hereby
ORDERED that the government provide Mr. Hamm with a copy of its pretrial exhibit list no later than January 12, 2018.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), any party may seek reconsideration of this order before the district court upon a showing that the order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The parties have fourteen (14) days after service of this order to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), unless an extension of time for good cause is obtained.