United States District Court, D. Oregon
C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court on Defendant Marcus
Mumford's motion for discovery (Dkt. No. 5). Having
thoroughly considered the parties' briefing and the
relevant record, and oral argument heard on February 15,
2017, the Court hereby GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the
motion for the reasons explained herein.
case involves alleged violations of 41 C.F.R. §
102-74.390(c) and 41 C.F.R. § 102-74.385. (Dkt. No. 1 at
1-2.) The events giving rise to the allegations occurred on
October 27, 2016, in a courtroom in the Mark O. Hatfield
Federal Courthouse, in Portland, Oregon. (Id.)
Government provided early discovery in this case. (Dkt. No. 6
at 1.) On December 19, 2016, the Government provided all of
the reports and witness statements it had in its possession
at the time, as well as a copy of the transcript of the
record and the courtroom security video. (Id.)
Defendant now makes 38 specific discovery requests. (Dkt. No.
Request Numbers 3, 8, 18, 20, 28, and 34.
government makes no objection to Request Numbers 3, 8, 18,
20, 28, and 34, (Dkt. No. 6 at 3, 6, 10, 11, 15, 19-20), and
the requests are GRANTED.
Request Numbers 1, 2, and 10.
Number 1 asks for
[a]ll emails, texts, twitter messages, reports and other
communications from, to, and among agents of the U.S.
Marshal's Service, the Department of Homeland Security,
and/or Federal Protective Service or contracted court
security officers (collectively, for the purpose of this
request, the “U.S. Marshal's Service”)
relating to (1) events in Courtroom 9A on October 17, 2016,
during a break in the Bundy trial, where U.S. Marshals
confronted Mr. Mumford and accused him of
“threatening” them, and (2) events in the
courtroom of Judge Anna Brown on October 27, 2016.
(Dkt. No. 5 at 1-2.) Request Number 2 asks for the same
materials “during the trial of Ammon Bundy that mention
Marcus Mumford.” (Id. at 2.) Request Number 10
asks for the same materials “related to, and any
record, video, and/or audio recording of, a hearing held
October 7, 2016, in the courtroom of Judge Robert E. Jones,
at approximately 1 p.m., including an ex parte
meeting held in camera prior to the hearing.”
(Id. at 4-5.)
Government objects to the requests as being “overly
broad in scope and overly general in rationale” and
that Defendant “has provided no explanation of how the
requested materials are material to preparing the
defense.” (Dkt. No. 6 at 2.) The Government also
understands this request to cover only materials in its
possession. (Id.) Finally, the Government points out
that “to the extent that the requested materials
constitute Brady evidence or Jencks statements, the
government already has an obligation to produce them and no
further order is necessary.” (Id. at 3.) The
Court agrees. However, the Court finds that the Marshals'
government issued cell phones are subject to discovery and
should any texts reveal hostility towards Defendant or in any
way casts doubt on their credibility, they must be produced.
Because the Court expects the Government to fulfill its
obligation, Defendant's Request Numbers 1, 2, and 10 are
Request Numbers 4, 5, 7, 9, 11-14, 19, 26, ...