United States v. Naggs, 2:18-cr-00130

Background

Defendants Bret Naggs, Mark Wogsland, and Peter Armbruster are charged with a conspiracy to defraud Roadrunner Transportation Systems’ shareholders, lenders, and the investing public and to mislead auditors, lenders, and regulators about Roadrunner’s financial condition.
Defendants moved under Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(d)(2)(A) to compel two categories of material: (1) investigation materials the government received from Roadrunner through its outside counsel (including ‘‘interview downloads’’), and (2) written or recorded statements of defendant Wogsland beyond his own grand jury transcript.
The government produced Wogsland’s September 12, 2017 grand jury transcript and has produced extensive discovery (over 9 million pages); it contends subsequent grand jury sessions contained only law‑enforcement/summary witness testimony.
Defendants argued that portions of later grand jury transcripts that ‘‘present’’ Wogsland’s testimony constitute Wogsland’s own statements under Rule 16 and must be produced sooner; they also contend third‑party materials provided to the government are discoverable.
The magistrate judge applied Rule 16 materiality and prima facie standards, relied on United States v. Callahan as controlling, found defendants’ requests were too vague and failed to show materiality or identify specific withheld items, and denied both categories of relief.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether grand jury transcripts of other witnesses that present Wogsland’s prior testimony are Wogsland’s "own statements" under Rule 16	Such testimony is witness testimony (not the defendant’s own statement) and thus not producible as Wogsland’s statement; Callahan controls	Portions re‑presenting Wogsland’s original testimony are effectively Wogsland’s own statements and must be produced as his recorded testimony	Denied. Court applied Callahan: testimony presented through other witnesses remains witness statements, not the defendant’s statements under Rule 16
Whether the government must produce investigation materials received from Roadrunner (including interview downloads)	Government produced extensive discovery and provided interview metadata; defendant’s request is vague; some notes may be work product or privileged	Materials provided to the government by third parties (and factual work product in government notes) are discoverable and should be produced	Denied. Defendants failed to make a prima facie showing of materiality or identify specific withheld documents; privilege/work‑product issues not adequately presented
Whether defendants met Rule 16’s prima facie/materiality showing required to compel production	Defendants relied on general descriptions and hypothetical categories and did not show how specific items would significantly help their defense	Defendants need not show everything now but argued categories could reveal material impeachment/fact evidence	Denied. Court held defendants did not convincingly explain how specific documents would significantly help uncover admissible evidence or impeach witnesses, per Thompson/Caputo standards

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Callahan, 534 F.2d 763 (7th Cir. 1976) (held that portions of grand jury testimony recounting a defendant’s statements are witness statements, not the defendant’s own statements under Rule 16)
Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967) (protection against compelled statements under threat of job loss in certain contexts)
United States v. Gaddis, 877 F.2d 605 (7th Cir. 1989) (explaining materiality for Rule 16 discovery)
United States v. Thompson, 944 F.2d 1331 (7th Cir. 1991) (defendant must make a prima facie showing of materiality to obtain documents under Rule 16)
United States v. Caputo, 373 F. Supp. 2d 789 (N.D. Ill. 2005) (a defendant cannot rely on general descriptions; must explain how specific documents will significantly help defense)
United States v. Felt, 491 F. Supp. 179 (D.D.C. 1979) (examples of how requested evidence may significantly help uncover admissible evidence)