United States v. SANTIAGO, 5:12-cr-00566

Eight defendants, led by Melvin Santiago, are charged in a cocaine-trafficking conspiracy with connections to Allentown, PA and Puerto Rico, involving 1,329 Spanish-language intercepted calls deemed pertinent by government linguists.
Santiago moved to compel English-language transcripts of all pertinent Spanish recordings; co-defendants joined the motion.
The court declared the case complex under the Speedy Trial Act, partly due to vast discovery and the 1,329 pertinent calls.
The government provided audio copies of all 1,329 pertinent calls and English-language summaries, and promised rolling production of verbatim transcripts for about 200 calls to be used at trial.
Defendants argued for transcripts of all pertinent calls; the government argued Brady and Rule 16 do not require it, but the court has inherent authority to manage discovery.
The court held a March 8, 2013 hearing and granted the motion in part, ordering English transcripts of all 1,329 pertinent calls, but denying full cost-shifting for transcripts not used at trial or sentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Authority to compel transcripts	Santiago contends the court may compel transcripts under its discovery supervision.	Santiago argues the court has inherent authority to require transcripts; Parks and Zavala support transcription in pertinent cases.	Court has authority to require transcripts of pertinent calls.
Scope: transcripts of all pertinent calls	Santiago seeks English transcripts for all 1,329 pertinent conversations identified by linguists.	Government argues only summaries sufficient; not all transcripts are required by Brady/Rule 16.	Court grants transcripts for all 1,329 pertinent calls.
Brady/Rule 16 applicability	Transcripts are needed for effective defense; aids in discovery and trial prep.	Brady/Rule 16 do not require full transcription; audio plus summaries suffice.	Brady/Rule 16 do not mandate transcripts, but discretionary authority supports production.
Cost allocation	Producing transcripts is part of discovery; government should bear costs.	Costs should not be shifted; government has resources and can obtain transcripts efficiently.	Court denies full cost-shifting for transcripts not used at trial or sentencing; government may seek partial reimbursement for non-used transcripts.

United States v. Zavala, 839 F.2d 523 (9th Cir. 1988) (supports transcription of pertinent foreign-language calls as reasonable under discovery)
United States v. Parks, 100 F.3d 1300 (7th Cir. 1996) (transcript production cannot be coerced beyond legal requirements; control of pertinent material)
United States v. Warshak, 631 F.3d 266 (6th Cir. 2010) (discovery formats and indexing; not a Brady violation absent padding or prejudice)