United States v. MST MINERALIEN SCHIFFARHT SPEDITION UND TRANSPORT GMBH
2:17-cr-00117
D. Me.Nov 19, 2017Background
- Defendants MST and Reederei operate/own the Liberian-flagged M/V Marguerita; crew interviews followed a July 2017 arrival and criminal investigation. Four foreign crew members were detained on material-witness warrants and the court ordered Rule 15 depositions to be taken by Sept. 23, 2017.
- Government scheduled depositions (Sept. 11–13, 2017) and moved for an order setting deposition "ground rules." Defendants moved to quash that motion and separately moved to compel disclosure of materials the government withheld.
- Defendants sought handwritten/rough notes of agents from onboard interviews and documents from six sealed, related material-witness proceedings. The government had produced formal reports but withheld onboard handwritten notes and sealed-file materials.
- Defendants argued Rule 16(a)(1)(B)(ii) (and (i)) required production of any written record containing the substance of relevant oral statements; government countered that the formal reports it produced satisfied Rule 16.
- The court ordered production, by close of business Sept. 9, 2017, of portions of written records (including rough notes) and of sealed-case documents that contained the substance of any relevant oral statements by the four material witnesses, subject to a confidentiality order. The government ultimately did not press its ground-rules motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether government must produce agents' handwritten/rough notes containing substance of material witnesses' oral statements under Rule 16(a)(1)(B)(ii) | Notes are written records containing the substance and must be produced on request | Formal written reports supplied by government satisfy Rule 16; underlying rough notes unnecessary | Court: Rule 16 requires production of portions of any written records (including rough notes) containing the substance of relevant oral statements; ordered production limited to portions containing substance of witnesses' statements |
| Whether documents filed in sealed, related material-witness cases that contain witness statements must be produced | Sealed-case files contain written statements within government possession and fall under Rule 16(a)(1)(B)(i)/(ii) | Government did not object to narrowed request for portions containing substance of oral statements | Court: Ordered production of portions of sealed-case documents containing the substance of relevant oral statements, subject to counsel-only confidentiality order |
| Whether the court should adopt government-proposed deposition "ground rules" (scope, objections, exhibit exchange, limits on speaking objections) | Government: ground rules (some redundant with Rule 15) needed to complete depositions in two days and manage scope/objections | Defendants: many rules are covered by Rule 15; Rule 15(e)(2) allows trial-like examination including re-cross; objected to limits on scope and speaking objections | Court: Government conceded much was covered by Rule 15; after discussion government did not press motion and it was moot. Court expected depositions to follow Rule 15 and civ. deposition practice (concise, nonargumentative objections) |
| Whether deposition testimony might be inadmissible if rough notes are not preserved/produced | Defendants: rough notes may contain impeachment material affecting admissibility under confrontation and Rule 804(b)(1) framework | Government: argued formal reports suffice to preserve substance | Court: emphasized practical need to produce rough notes before depositions to avoid Confrontation/Rule 804 issues and preserve impeachment lines; ordered production of substance portions |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Clark, 385 F.3d 609 (6th Cir. 2004) (agent rough notes qualify as written records under Rule 16)
- United States v. Molina-Guevara, 96 F.3d 698 (3d Cir. 1996) (government conceded failure to produce agent notes violated Rule 16)
- United States v. Vallee, 380 F. Supp. 2d 11 (D. Mass. 2005) (Rule 16 plainly requires production of handwritten agent notes containing defendant statements)
- United States v. Almohandis, 307 F. Supp. 2d 253 (D. Mass. 2004) (rough notes of interviews are producible under Rule 16)
- United States v. Stein, 424 F. Supp. 2d 720 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (discussion of Rule 16 amendment and production of rough notes)
- United States v. Caramadre, 882 F. Supp. 2d 295 (D.R.I. 2012) (importance of preserving confrontation rights for Rule 15 depositions and admissibility under Rule 804 and Crawford)