United States v. Gilbertson
0:17-cr-00066
| D. Minnesota | Apr 23, 2018Background
- Defendants Ryan Gilbertson and Douglas Hoskins are charged with wire fraud, securities fraud, and conspiracy for allegedly manipulating Dakota Plains Holdings, Inc. stock.\
- Gilbertson objected to Magistrate Judge Bowbeer’s Feb. 20, 2018 order denying a bill of particulars and partially denying a motion to compel Brady materials.\
- The superseding indictment is a detailed, 24‑page (later superseded) document describing the alleged scheme.\
- The SEC conducted a civil enforcement action against Gilbertson and investigated the same conduct; it produced some materials to DOJ but withheld untranscribed interview notes as work product.\
- Judge Bowbeer ordered DOJ to obtain and review SEC materials only for three interviews in which DOJ participated; she declined to require DOJ to review SEC‑only materials from SEC‑exclusive interviews.\
- District Court reviews magistrate nondispositive rulings for clear error or legal error and affirmed Judge Bowbeer’s order in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion for bill of particulars | Government: indictment is sufficient; no further particulars needed | Gilbertson: requests more detail to prepare defense | Denied — indictment sufficiently detailed to avoid surprise (bill unnecessary) |
| Brady review of SEC materials | Government: must disclose Brady material it knows or reasonably should know | Gilbertson: DOJ must review all SEC materials (including SEC‑only notes) for Brady material | Partially granted/denied — DOJ must obtain/review materials from three joint interviews but not SEC‑only materials otherwise |
| Whether SEC acted as part of prosecution team | Government: SEC and DOJ largely conducted separate investigations | Gilbertson: SEC investigations were effectively part of the prosecution team, so DOJ must review all SEC files | Court agreed SEC and DOJ were joint only for three interviews; otherwise investigations were separate |
| Applicability of Mahaffy/Parker to require broader disclosure | Government: those cases involved prosecutors’ own possession/knowledge of material | Gilbertson: cites those cases to argue for broader duty to obtain SEC materials | Court: Mahaffy and Parker distinguishable — those were Brady failures where prosecutors possessed or knew of the evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Beasley v. United States, 688 F.3d 523 (8th Cir.) (purpose of bill of particulars: prepare for trial, avoid surprise)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (prosecutor must learn of favorable evidence known to others acting on government’s behalf)
- Meregildo v. United States, 920 F. Supp. 2d 434 (S.D.N.Y.) (joint‑investigation factors guide Brady obligations)
- Robinson v. United States, 809 F.3d 991 (8th Cir.) (prosecutor’s duty to seek material through reasonable diligence)
- Mahaffy v. United States, 693 F.3d 113 (2d Cir.) (Brady violation where prosecution had access to SEC deposition transcripts containing undisclosed material)
- Parker v. United States, 790 F.3d 550 (4th Cir.) (Brady violation where prosecutors failed to disclose known SEC investigation of a key witness)