United States v. Shayota
5:15-cr-00264
N.D. Cal.May 10, 2016Background
- Indictment: Three-count indictment charging a multi-defendant conspiracy to manufacture/distribute counterfeit 5-Hour ENERGY and related conspiracies (Count 1: trafficking in counterfeit goods under 18 U.S.C. § 2320; Count 2: conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement under 18 U.S.C. § 371/17 U.S.C. § 506; Count 3: conspiracy to introduce misbranded food into interstate commerce under 18 U.S.C. § 371/21 U.S.C. §§ 331, 343).
- Defendants: Eleven individuals (including Joseph, Adriana, Justin Shayota; Mario and Camilo Ramirez; Walid and Raid Jamil; Kevin and Fadi Attiq; Leslie Roman; Juan Romero) filed multiple pretrial motions; Court considered disclosure, consolidation, discovery, and dismissal motions.
- Procedural posture: Court ruled on motions to join co-defendants’ motions, consolidation/multiplicity of counts, bill of particulars, deadlines for co-defendant statements and 404(b) material, discovery requests by the Ramirezes, and motion to dismiss for allegedly compelled destruction of evidence; further briefing/hearings scheduled for some items.
- Discovery and scheduling: Government produced extensive discovery and agreed to deadlines for Jencks materials and notice (co-defendant statements by Aug. 19, 2016; 404(b) notice by Aug. 26, 2016; Jencks material by Sept. 23, 2016).
- Central factual dispute relevant to motions: Ramirezes contend a civil settlement with Living Essentials required destruction of signed printing proofs that might be exculpatory; defendants also challenge overlap/multiplicity of conspiracy counts and seek particularized discovery (grand jury materials, communications between Living Essentials and the government).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motions to join co-defendant motions | N/A (ministerial) | Defendants sought to join co-defendants’ filings | Granted — motions to join were allowed |
| Multiplicity / consolidation of Counts One, Two, Three | Attiqs: Counts 2 & 3 are multiplicitous of Count 1 and should be consolidated into Count 1 | Government: counts charge different statutory elements; counts may stand | Counts 2 and 3 are NOT multiplicitous of Count 1 (Blockburger elements differ); but Counts 2 and 3 are multiplicitous of each other and are consolidated into one § 371 conspiracy |
| Bill of particulars (Attiqs) | Request for detailed factual specifics/evidence on 11 points to prepare defense and avoid surprise | Government: Indictment and produced discovery are sufficient; request is effectively full discovery | Denied — Indictment + discovery suffice; bill would be improper substitute for discovery |
| Deadline for notice of co-defendant statements & redactions | Adriana Shayota: set deadline for govt disclosure of statements and proposed redactions | Government consented to a pretrial deadline | Granted — Government to disclose co-defendant statements and redactions by Aug. 19, 2016 (applies to all defendants) |
| Ramirezes’ discovery requests (grand jury transcripts, Living Essentials–gov communications, seized evidence identification, 404(b) notice) | Ramirezes: grand jury transcripts and communications will show biased/inadequate investigation; seek identification of seized items and other discovery | Government: produced thousands of documents, will produce Jencks material and 404(b) by specified dates; grand jury materials are generally secret and early disclosure barred | Granted in part, denied in part: grand jury transcripts denied (Jencks timing and secrecy); Government to produce Jencks and disclose 404(b) by Aug. 26; identification of seized evidence available in produced materials and via exhibit list; other broad requests denied without sufficient particularized need |
| Motion to dismiss for destruction of evidence (Ramirezes) | Ramirezes: civil settlement with Living Essentials allegedly required destruction of signed proofs that could be exculpatory; dismissal warranted | Government: it did not participate in civil settlement or direct destruction; no bad faith by prosecutors; Ramirezes cannot show gov't bad faith | Denied — dismissal requires showing government bad faith in loss/destruction of evidence, which Ramirezes did not and could not show |
Key Cases Cited
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (establishes test for whether two statutory offenses are the same for double jeopardy purposes)
- United States v. Kimbrew, 406 F.3d 1149 (applies Blockburger to conspiracy counts and compares statutory elements)
- United States v. Arlt, 252 F.3d 1032 (permitting convictions under a specific conspiracy statute and § 371 when objects differ)
- United States v. Smith, 424 F.3d 992 (uses multi-factor test for multiplicity under same conspiracy statute and examines similarity of goals)
- Arnold v. United States, 336 F.2d 347 (sets five-factor test for determining multiplicity when same statute is charged)
- United States v. Giese, 597 F.2d 1170 (describes purpose and limits of bill of particulars)
- United States v. W.R. Grace, 526 F.3d 499 (district court authority to enter pretrial case management and discovery orders)
- United States v. Basurto, 497 F.2d 781 (limits inquiry into grand jury deliberations once indictment valid on its face)
- United States v. Sivilla, 714 F.3d 1168 (bad-faith requirement for dismissal based on destruction of evidence)
- Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (due process claim for failure to preserve evidence requires bad faith)
- United States v. Taylor, 802 F.2d 1108 (Jencks Act bars early disclosure of statements by prospective government witnesses)