Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-akd-3_18-cr-00035/USCOURTS-akd-3_18-cr-00035-10/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Louis Holger Eklund
Defendant
Louis Holger
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

 LOUIS HOLGER EKLUND,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:18-cr-00035-SLG-MMS

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR PAPER DISCOVERY

Before the Court at Docket 360 is defendant Louis Holger Eklund’s pro se filing 

entitled “Motion for Discovery Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. Rule 16(a)(1)(B)(i)(E)(i).” The 

government responded in opposition at Docket 366. 

Mr. Holger is in custody at the Anchorage Correctional Complex (ACC) awaiting 

trial in this case. In January 2020, Mr. Holger elected to represent himself, and the Court 

appointed attorney Lance Wells as standby counsel.1 The government provided 

discovery to Mr. Wells digitally. The digital discovery appears to consist of documents 

and audio files and contains “government-supplied indexes of discovery in Excel format.”2 

Mr. Holger currently has three disks of digital discovery with him at the ACC.3 Mr. Holger 

asserts that since June, he has “been able to review the discovery CDs twice, over a 

period of time totaling about 4 hours” and that none of the audio files on the CDs were 

1 Docket 147.

2 Docket 366 at 3.

3 Docket 360 at 2. 

Case 3:18-cr-00035-SLG-MMS Document 367 Filed 10/30/20 Page 1 of 4
Case No. 3:18-cr-00035-SLG-MMS, United States v. Eklund

Order Re Motion for Paper Discovery

Page 2 of 4

playable.4 He maintains that the computer available to him at the ACC is “slow, old, 

ragged, & busted up.”

5

 Mr. Holger seeks an order requiring the government to provide 

him with “a full copy of discovery in paper format, including paper transcripts of the audio 

files.”6 He reasons that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(1)(E) has been violated 

because he has “not been provided with the oportunity [sic] to inspect nor copy the 

documents & papers & audio files that are on the discovery CDs.”7

The government responds that it “has fulfilled its discovery obligations under 

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 by producing discovery to the defendant’s standby 

counsel” and that the Rule “does not compel the government to change the [sic] print 

discovery for the defendant when it has already provided discovery in functional electronic 

format.”8 The parties agree that there are many thousands of pages of discovery in this 

case: The government estimates there are more than 18,200 pages.9 The government 

contends that “it would be unreasonable to print” that amount of discovery and that 

standby counsel can print discovery if requested by Mr. Holger.10 And if standby counsel 

notifies the government that he cannot open certain digital files, “the government will 

4 Docket 360 at 2–3.

5 Docket 360 at 4.

6 Docket 360 at 7.

7 Docket 360 at 4. 

8 Docket 366 at 3.

9 Docket 366 at 4; Docket 360 at 3.

10 Docket 366 at 4.

Case 3:18-cr-00035-SLG-MMS Document 367 Filed 10/30/20 Page 2 of 4
Case No. 3:18-cr-00035-SLG-MMS, United States v. Eklund

Order Re Motion for Paper Discovery

Page 3 of 4

insure that a functional file is provided,” but no such notice has been provided to it.11 The 

government supports its position with a declaration from the Director for Institutions for 

the Alaska Department of Corrections, who states that the ACC currently has working 

computers for inmates to use, and that “[i]f an inmate received approximately 18,000 

pages of paper discovery, that would create a logistical problem,” but that an inmate 

“could have a box or two [of discovery] in his cell at a time.”12

Mr. Holger cites to no authority requiring the government to disclose discovery in 

a particular form. Rule 16(a)(1)(E) requires the government to “permit the defendant to 

inspect and to copy” discovery; the Rule does not require the government produce 

discovery or to facilitate said inspection or copying if the defendant is provided with a 

complete set of discovery.13 “[T]he express language contained in Rule 16 necessarily 

directs the conclusion that the rule does not require the government to copy or otherwise 

expend government funds in order to supply criminal defendants with their requested 

material.”

14

 The government has met its Rule 16 obligation.

11 Docket 366 at 

12 Docket 366-1 (declaration of Jeremy Hough).

13 See United States v. Krug, Case No. CR09-01148-MMM, 2013 WL 12219026, at *1 (C.D. Cal. 

Jan. 4, 2013) (Rule 16(a)(1)(E) “does not require that discovery be produced in any particular 

format”); United States v. Jordan, 316 F.3d 1215, 1249 (11th Cir. 2003) (“And even if there is a 

request [by the defendant pursuant to Rule 16(a)], the government is not obligated to make 

copies of the items.”).

14 United States v. Freedman, 688 F.2d 1364, 1366 (11th Cir. 1982) (noting that “Rule 16 does 

not expressly obligate the government to make even one copy of the documents” and 

concluding that “[t]o mandate that the government expend both its valuable time and funds in 

copying documents which the defendants have requested, when Rule 16 does not expressly 

require such, constitutes an abuse of the trial court’s discretion[.]”).

Case 3:18-cr-00035-SLG-MMS Document 367 Filed 10/30/20 Page 3 of 4
Case No. 3:18-cr-00035-SLG-MMS, United States v. Eklund

Order Re Motion for Paper Discovery

Page 4 of 4

Mr. Holger may bring a motion if he is not able to access specified files on the 

discovery disks. In any such motion, Mr. Holger should specifically identify the files he 

has been unable to access and indicate to what extent he has attempted to work with 

standby counsel to access these files.

In light of the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the motion at Docket 360 is DENIED.

DATED this 30th day of October, 2020, at Anchorage, Alaska.

/s/ Sharon L. Gleason

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:18-cr-00035-SLG-MMS Document 367 Filed 10/30/20 Page 4 of 4