1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER ON DISCOVERY MOTIONS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff,

v.

RICHARD ALLEN FABEL, 

RODNEY ROLLNESS, 

JOSHUA BINDER, and 

RICKY JENKS, and

PAUL FOSTER.

Defendants.

Case No. CR06-041L

ORDER ON DISCOVERY MOTIONS

I. Introduction

This matter comes before the Court on “Defendant Fabel’s Motion for Bill of Particulars”

(Dkt. #175), “Defendant Fabel’s Second Motion for Bill of Particulars” (Dkt. #203), “Defendant

Richard Fabel’s Motion for Early Disclosure of Co-Conspirator Statements” (Dkt. #213),

“Defendant’s Request for Discovery Pursuant to Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995)” (Dkt.

#215), “Defendants’ Motion for Order Directing Disclosure of 404(b) Evidence” (Dkt. #216),

“Motion to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence” (Dkt. #221), “Defendants’ Motion to Compel

Discovery” (Dkt. # 222), “Defendant Paul Foster’s Motion for Brady Material; ER404(b); and

Discovery; Memo In Support” (Dkt. #224), and “Defendants’ Emergency Motion In Limine to

Prohibit Admission of Laughlin Evidence” (Dkt. #272).

Case 2:06-cr-00041-RSL Document 305 Filed 11/29/06 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

Witness contact information shall be provided to defense counsel pursuant to the Protective

Order.

2

Based on the Government’s representation that it will fulfill its legal obligations to turn over all

Brady material it is aware of, or should be aware of, the Court denies Defendant’s motion to require the

Government to turn over all material in the possession of “any local or federal policy agency involved in

this investigation.” (Dkt. #215).

3

The Court has reviewed and redacted the presentence reports submitted by the Government. 

Counsel can obtain copies of the redacted reports in chambers.

4

The Court will not require the Government to turn over Jencks Act material at this time, though

the matter will be discussed further at the December 7, 2006 status conference.

ORDER ON DISCOVERY MOTIONS

-2-

II. Analysis

A. Government Disclosures

The Court has reviewed the memoranda relating to defendants’ various requests for

disclosures from the Government and orders that the Government provide the following to

defendants by December 1, 2006: (1) a witness list together with contact information1

; (2) all

written or oral statements made by any of the defendants to potential Government witnesses; (3)

all evidence the Government intends to introduce at trial under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b);

and (4) all Brady material2

 the Government intends to use at trial.3 The Court also orders that

the Government disclose to defendants all co-conspirator statements it plans to introduce at trial

by December 26, 2006.4

B. Unsealing of Search Warrant Affadavit

Defendants seek to unseal the affidavit in support of the search warrant relating to the

third search of defendant Rollness’ home (Dkt. #222). The Government maintains that the

protection of its informants requires that the affidavit remain sealed. Having reviewed the

affidavit, the Court concludes that while disclosure of much of the document is now appropriate,

particularly as it relates to CW 4, there are portions that, as of now, should remain sealed to

ensure the safety of other Government informants. See United States v. Napier, 436 F.3d 1133,

1136 (9th Cir. 2006). As such, the Court has redacted those portions of the affidavit that it

Case 2:06-cr-00041-RSL Document 305 Filed 11/29/06 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER ON DISCOVERY MOTIONS

-3-

concludes should remain sealed, with the remainder ordered unsealed. Counsel can obtain

copies of the redacted and unsealed affidavit in chambers.

C. Admissibility of Laughlin Evidence

Defendants move in limine to prohibit admission of evidence relating to the Laughlin

incident at trial. The Government has indicated that it will not introduce such evidence to prove

that the Hells Angels were in a conspiracy to murder Mongols, but that it may seek to use such

evidence to rebut a defense theory that the Hells Angels is merely a club of individuals linked

together by their common pursuit of riding motorcycles. In light of the recent decision of the

Government to abandon Racketeering Act Three at trial, and the volume, complexity and

prejudicial nature of the evidence involved, the Court agrees that the probative value of the

evidence relating to Laughlin is “substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,

confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, [and] waste

of time.” Fed. R. Evid. 403. Defendants’ motion to prohibit the Government’s use of the

Laughlin incident as rebuttal evidence to this particular defense theory is therefore granted.

D. Bill of Particulars

Defendants filed two motions seeking to require the Government to file a bill of

particulars. The first relates solely to Racketeering Act Three (Dkt. #175). Because the

Government has now indicated that it will dismiss Racketeering Act Three, this motion is

dismissed as moot. The second is more broad (Dkt. #203). The Court, however, concludes that

the Government has met its obligation to “apprise the defendant of the specific charges being

presented to minimize danger of surprise at trial, to aid in preparation and to protect against

double jeopardy.” United States v. Long, 706 F.2d 1044, 1054 (9th Cir. 1983). As such, the

Court denies defendants’ second motion for a bill of particulars as well.

III. Conclusion

For all of the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ “Motion for Early Disclosure of CoConspirator Statements” (Dkt. #213), “Motion for Order Directing Disclosure of 404(b)

Case 2:06-cr-00041-RSL Document 305 Filed 11/29/06 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER ON DISCOVERY MOTIONS

-4-

Evidence” (Dkt. #216), “Motion to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence” (Dkt. #221), “Motion to

Compel Discovery” (Dkt. # 222), and “Defendant Paul Foster’s Motion for Brady Material;

ER404(b); and Discovery” (Dkt. #224) are all GRANTED IN PART. “Defendants’ Emergency

Motion In Limine to Prohibit Admission of Laughlin Evidence” (Dkt. #272) is GRANTED. 

Defendant Fabel’s motions for a bill of particulars (Dkt. #175) (Dkt. #203) and “Request for

Discovery Pursuant to Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995)” (Dkt. #215) are DENIED. The

Court will discuss all remaining discovery issues at the December 7, 2006 status conference.

DATED this 29th day of November, 2006

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cr-00041-RSL Document 305 Filed 11/29/06 Page 4 of 4