792 F. Supp. 2d 172
D.P.R.2011Background
- This is a criminal case United States v. Bravo-Fernandez et al., in the District of Puerto Rico, filed under Criminal No. 10-232 (FAB).
- Defendants Bravo and Martinez filed three discovery-related motions on November 15, 2010: to compel discovery, to strike surplusage, and for a bill of particulars.
- The Government opposed all three motions on November 24, 2010.
- The court applied a Scheduling Order approved September 10, 2010, and did not revisit deadlines already set for discovery.
- The court denied all three motions, concluding the government had complied with Brady/Giglio/Rule 16 and related discovery duties, and that the indictment was sufficient and not subject to strike or expanded particulars.
- The court addressed several specific issues: De Castro-Font materials, transcripts/translations, ongoing discovery, surplusage, and the scope of a bill of particulars.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether discovery should be compelled beyond scheduling order deadlines | Government argues scheduling order controls; no noncompliance shown | Bravo/Martinez contend overdue or missing materials | Denied; scheduling order deadlines govern; no ongoing noncompliance found |
| Whether De Castro-Font materials and related transcripts should be summarized or further produced | Materials already provided; due process satisfied | Requests for summaries/logs and broader translations warranted | Denied; materials provided sufficiently under Brady/Giglio; no further summaries required |
| Whether ongoing Brady/Giglio/Rule 16 discovery should be expanded | Government has complied and produced to date | More ongoing production needed | Denied; court finds current production adequate under scheduling order |
| Whether surplusage should be struck from the indictment | Indictment language relevant and tied to charged offenses | Some language is prejudicial surplusage | Denied; language not surplusage given context and charged conspiracy |
| Whether a bill of particulars is warranted to detail unknown conspirators, acts, and financial thresholds | Indictment sufficiently informs charges; discovery provided | Bill of particulars necessary for defense preparation | Denied; indictment sufficient; bill of particulars not warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- El-Silimy, 228 F.R.D. 52 (D. Me. 2005) (surplusage standard is narrow; immaterial allegations rarely stricken)
- Lewis, 40 F.3d 1325 (1st Cir. 1994) (surplusage and relevance considerations in indictments)
- Fahey, 769 F.2d 829 (1st Cir. 1985) (surplusage and materiality limitations in indictments)
- Sawyer, 878 F. Supp. 279 (D. Mass. 1995) (surplusage rarely stricken; strict standard)
- Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87 (1974) (bill of particulars; specificity and notice requirements)
- Flores-De Jesus, 569 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2009) (prohibition on vouching; context of witness credibility)