Free Order - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1
2
3
4
5
6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, g CR 04-820-PHX-FIM
I0 Plaintiff, ) ORDER
I
11 vs. )
I
12 )
HARVEY L. SLONIKER, JR., )
13 TYE SLONIKER, )
KINDY IONAGAN, )
14 ROBERT SHINN, {
RICHARD NAIL,
15 JOHN DESIDERIO, )
16 Defendants. I
I
17 )
18
19
20 The court has before it Desiderio‘s motion for disclosure of Brady information (doc.
107), Harvey Sloniker's joinder (doc. 132), Robert Shinn’s joinder (doc, 150), the United
21
States' response, and Desiderids reply. This court's order of May 2, 2005, sets deadlines for
22
23 the disclosure of Brady and other materials. The governments response indicates that it is
4 complying and will comply with this court's scheduling order and Brady. Accordingly,
2
Desiderio's motion for disclosure of Brady information is DENIED on grounds of mootness
25
26 (doc. 107).
The court has before it Jonagan's motion for disclosure of Brady infomation (doc.
27
126), Nail's joinder (doc. 138), the United States' response, Ionagan's reply, and Nail's reply.
28
Case 2:04-cr-00820-FJI\/I Document 187 Filed 11/30/2005 Page 1 of 3

1 The United States represents that it has complied with its Brady obligations and has complied
2 with this court's scheduling order. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED DENYING this motion
3 on grounds of mootness (doc. 126).
4 The court has before it Desiderio‘s motion for review of agent personnel files (doc.
5 108), Sloi1iker'sjoinder (doc. 13 1), Jonagan's motion for review of agent personnel files (doc.
6 127), Shinn's joinder (doc. 149), Shinn's supplemental motion for disclosure of personnel
7 files (doc. 148), Nai1's joinder in motion (doc. 141), The United States' response, the United
8 States' second response, and Nai1's reply. The United States acknowledges its obligations to
9 review the personnel files and either produce information potentially material to the defense
10 or submit it for in camera review. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED DENYING all motions
11 for review of agent's personnel tiles on grounds of mootness.
12 The court has before it Desiderio's motion to sever (doc. 109), the United States'
13 response, and Desiderio‘s reply. Because Rule 8(b), Fed. R. Crim. P., has been satisfied, IT
14 IS ORDERED DENYING the motion to sever (doc. 109).
15 The court has before it defendant Harvey Sloniker's motion to sever defendants and
16 counts (doc. 112), the United States' response, a.nd Harvey S1oniker‘s reply. IT IS
17 ORDERED DENYING Harvey S1oniker's motion to sever defendants and counts (doc. 1 12).
18 The court has before it defendant Jonagan's motion to sever (doc. 129), the defendant
19 Richard Nail's joinder (doc. 139), the United States' response, and Ionagan's reply. IT IS
20 ORDERED DENYING Jonagan's motion to sever (doc. 129).
21 The court has before it the defendant Nai1's motion to sever (doc. 146), the United
22 States' response, and the defendant's reply. IT IS ORDERED DENYING Nai1's motion to
23 sever (doc. 146).
24 The court has before it defendant Jonagan's motion in limirze regarding post-event
25 telemarketing employment (doc. 137), and the United States' response. IT IS ORDERED
26 DENYING this motion because it is premature, without prejudice to reurge it at the trial (doc.
27 137).
28
- 2 -
Case 2:04—or—00820-FJI\/I Document 187 Filed 11/30/2005 Page 2 013

1 The court has before it defendant Nail's motion to preclude testimony of expert
2 witnesses (doc. 144), defendant Shinn's motion to preclude testimony of expert witness (doc.
3 151), the United States' response, and Nail's reply. The parties quarrel over the nature of
4 their respective obligations to disclose expert testimony under Rule 16(a)(1)(G), Fed. R.
5 Crim. P. The written summary required by this subsection "must describe the witr1ess's
6 opinions, the bases and reasons for those opinions, and the witness's qualifications." We
7 cannot tell at this point whether the government has provided an adequate summary. If it has
8 not done so, it should do so. Should any objections be raised at trial in connection with
9 expert witness disclosure, the parties shall be prepared to show the court that such disclosures
10 have been made. IT IS ORDERED DENYING Nail's and Shinn's motions to preclude the
11 testimony of expert witnesses (docs. 144, 151).
12 The court has before it the defendant Nai1's motion to extend the time to file pretrial
13 motions (doc. 145), Harvey Sloniker‘s joinder (doc. 177), .Ionagan's joinder (doc. 178), the
14 United States' response, and Nail's reply. This court is of the view that there have already
15 been far too many motions tiled in this case and an extension of the deadline would burden
16 the process without any offsetting benefit to the administration of justice. Accordingly, IT
17 IS ORDERED DENYING all motions to extend the time to file pretrial motions. This, of
18 course, is without prejudice to the right of any party to make a legitimate objection at trial.
19
20 DATED this 10* day of November, 2005.
21
22
23 %i—;"./......;.,.» ,;; @g,»ra
24 an§§“§i;¥E$lsE§’€slé?‘l§dgr
25 ‘
26
27
28
- 3 -
Case 2:04—cr—00820-FJI\/I Document 187 Filed 11/30/2005 Page 3 013

Case 2:04-cr-00820-FJM

Document 187

Filed 11/30/2005

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:04-cr-00820-FJM

Document 187

Filed 11/30/2005

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:04-cr-00820-FJM

Document 187

Filed 11/30/2005

Page 3 of 3