Opinion
2:18-cr-00253-APG-NJK
03-16-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ANTHONY UVARI, Defendant.
ORDER
[DOCKET NO. 132]
Nancy J. Koppe, United States Magistrate Judge
Pending before the Court is the United States' motion for in camera inspection. Docket No. 132. See also Docket No. 118 (Defendant's motion to compel seeking, in part, disclosure of the files at issue in the instant motion). The United States seeks in camera review of whether the case files for United States v. Jelinsky, 2:09-cr-00028-RLH-GWF, and United States v. Jacktrade, LLC, 2:12-cr-00401-GMN-PAL, are discoverable under Brady. Docket No. 132 at 1. The Court has considered the United States' motion, Defendant's response, and the United States' reply. Docket Nos. 132, 133, 136.
The Local Rules require a good faith meet and confer effort before coming to the Court with any criminal discovery dispute. Local Criminal Rule 16-1(c). To adequately meet and confer under the Local Rules, the parties must “communicate directly and discuss in good faith the issues” through “direct dialogue and discussion.” Local Rule IA 1-3(f). The movant must “certify that, despite a sincere effort to resolve . . . the dispute . . . the parties were unable to resolve . . . the dispute without court intervention. Local Rule IA 1-3(f)(2) (emphasis added). Failure to properly meet and confer prior to filing a motion with a meet and confer requirement “may result in the denial of the motion.” Local Rule IA 1-3(f)(4).
Based on the parties' submissions to the Court, the United States has failed to establish that there was a sincere effort to meet and confer on the underlying motion for in camera review. The information that the United States submits to the Court is that the parties “met and conferred” twice about the motion but “were unable to come to an agreement.” Docket No. 132 at 2 n.1. By the United States' own submissions, the conversations were limited to stipulating to allow in camera review of the files at issue. Docket No. 136 at 1. Defendant provides further information that the United States refused to participate in any meaningful discussion about the underlying dispute. Docket No. 133. The United States' motion therefore suffers from a threshold defect in that no proper meet and confer occurred. Accordingly, the United States' motion for in camera inspection is hereby DENIED. Docket No. 132.
Even if the parties had properly met and conferred, the Court would still deny the instant motion. The Court is never required to conduct an in camera review of the United States' files for Brady evidence that is favorable to Defendant. United States v. Alvarez, 358 F.3d 1194, 1211 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing United States v. Michaels, 796 F.2d 1112, 1116 (1986)). See also United States v. St. Luke's Subacute Care Hosp., Inc., 178 Fed.App'x. 711, 715 (9th Cir. 2006). Moreover, “[i]t is the government, not the defendant or the trial court, that decides prospectively what information, if any, is material and must be disclosed under Brady.” United States v. Lucas, 841 F.3d 796, 807 (9th Cir. 2016) (emphasis in original).
Accordingly, the Court DENIES without prejudice the United States' motion for in camera review. Docket No. 132.
IT IS SO ORDERED.