Case Information
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case CR 0066(1) (PJS/HB) Plaintiff,
v. ORDER RYAN RANDALL GILBERTSON,
Defendant. Joseph H. Thompson Kimberly A. Svendsen, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, for plaintiff.
William J. Mauzy Kaitlin Ek, MAUZY LAW OFFICE PA, Ryan Gilbertson. Defendants Ryan Gilbertson Douglas Hoskins charged with wire fraud, securities fraud, conspiracy commit securities fraud connection alleged scheme manipulate price stock Dakota Plains Holdings, Inc. This matter before Magistrate Hildy February regarding number pretrial motions. In particular, objects (1) denial his motion bill particulars and (2) partial denial his compel production under v. Maryland U.S. (1963).
A magistrate judge’s ruling nondispositive motions may reversed only if it “clearly law.” U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(a). Having reviewed Judge Bowbeer’s order, Court finds nothing clearly or to law. The therefore affirmed.
With respect Gilbertson’s motion for bill particulars: The Court agrees Judge ‐ page superseding indictment —which contains extensive detailed factual description alleged fraudulent scheme—is more than sufficient enable Gilbertson prepare for trial. v. Beasley (8th Cir. (purpose bill particulars enable defendant to prepare for trial, avoid risk surprise defendant, permit plead acquittal conviction bar same offense). The affirms denial Gilbertson’s motion bill particulars.
With respect compel materials: Gilbertson seeks certain Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”). The investigated alleged fraudulent scheme issue and, 2016, brought enforcement action against Gilbertson. CV ‐ (DWF/HB). That action remains pending, although Bowbeer, who also assigned case, recently stayed further in matter until resolution of this criminal case. Id. Nos. 103,
The has turned over some of civil investigative discovery materials the prosecution. The prosecution has, in turn, either produced or agreed produce all those defense. The has refused, however, turn over its depends fact ‐ intensive inquiry into the extent which the agencies conducted joint investigation. ECF at 4 (Gilbertson’s discussing the “joint investigation” standard); see generally v. Meregildo F. Supp. 2d (S.D.N.Y. (describing various factors relevant determining whether there was joint investigation).
Applying this standard, Judge Bowbeer carefully reviewed the extent which the SEC and the DOJ acted jointly. noted, Judge Bowbeer is the magistrate judge both and the SEC’s enforcement action. She intimately familiar both and the nature and extent each agency’s cooperation with other. found that SEC and DOJ acted jointly only in interviewing three witnesses, she ordered materials relevant joint SEC review. Otherwise, found that DOJ’s investigations were separate and thus was not part team. does identify error flaw Bowbeer’s
analysis. He simply argues unfair “tak[e] selective approach obtaining information documents [from SEC].” But there no DOJ sought—or produced—only evidence would helpful prosecution. took depositions, without involvement DOJ; SEC turned over transcripts all of those to prosecution, which, turn, produced them defendants. SEC also conducted more than a dozen informal interviews, (save three) without involvement the DOJ; refused turn over any notes regarding those grounds notes are protected work product. Clearly, then, not a which has deliberately failed documents which otherwise has access. [2] Cf. United States v. Robinson , 809 F.3d 996 (8th Cir. (“This attendant duty learn material favorable exculpatory or impeachment evidence necessarily anticipates a prosecutor will have opportunity discover such evidence through exercise reasonable diligence.”). also cites two cases which government violated by failing relating investigations. United States v. Parker , F.3d (4th Cir. 2015); United States Mahaffy , F.3d (2d Cir. 2012). Both those distinguishable, however.
In Mahaffy “[t]he prosecutions were products close collaboration between Attorney’s Office . . . .” Mahaffy Among things, attorneys both offices worked together as trial counsel in criminal staff attorney who conducted behalf was designated as an Assistant Attorney. Id. More importantly, prosecutors possessed copies deposition transcripts that contained undisclosed Brady material. Id. at 23. Mahaffy thus straightforward Brady case in which prosecution failed disclose exculpatory evidence in possession.
Similarly, Parker , failed disclose fact that an important government witness was subject an active fraud investigation. Parker , Mahaffy prosecutors themselves knew impeaching evidence failed disclose it. Like Mahaffy then, Parker simply straightforward application .
In case, however, argues that have an obligation they do possess information which they are not aware. Neither Mahaffy nor Parker establishes must Brady did not participate refused make available prosecutor. finds nothing clearly law denying solely available DOJ.
ORDER
Based foregoing, files, records, proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Ryan [ECF 131] OVERRULED February 20, [ECF 128] is AFFIRMED.
Dated: April s/Patrick J. Schiltz Patrick J. Schiltz District Judge
[1] After issued her order, obtained superseding indictment charging additional offenses. allegations superseding indictment appear materially identical original indictment.
notes untranscribed witness interviews. The Department Justice (“DOJ”) participated in three those interviews. Consequently, found prosecution has an obligation review any documents SEC’s possession that arose three joint any Brady material defense. With respect remaining material solely possession, however, held has no obligation review it. objects this aspect order. Under Brady “the individual has duty learn favorable known others acting on government’s behalf case, including police.” Kyles Whitley U.S. (1995). The issue here whether SEC “act[ed] government’s behalf” case—specifically, whether acted behalf when investigated brought proceedings against Gilbertson. parties do dispute relevant legal standard: Whether duty of
[2] other courts have noted, extent which have duty to obtain available government agencies difficult question. The Court does mean imply always duty all willing make available. Instead, merely observes specific lacks basis.