1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 

CONTINUE FILING DEADLINE AND COMPEL 

PRODUCTION OF DISCOVERY- 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

HENRY C. ROSENAU,

Defendant.

CASE NO. CR06-157MJP

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO CONTINUE FILING 

DEADLINE AND COMPEL 

PRODUCTION OF DISCOVERY

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s motion to continue filing deadline or 

in the alternative to compel production of discovery (Dkt. No. 30). Having reviewed the motion, 

the Government’s consolidated response (Dkt. No. 36), the Defendant’s reply (Dkt. No. 38), and 

the Government’s surreply (Dkt. No. 39), the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion. 

In relevant part, Rule 16(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure states:

Upon a defendant’s request, the government must permit the defendant to inspect 

and to copy or photograph books, papers, documents, data, photographs, tangible 

objects, buildings or places, or copies or portions of any of these items, if the item 

is within the government’s possession, custody, or control and (i) the item is 

material to preparing the defense; (ii) the government intends to use the item in its 

case-in-chief at trial; or (iii) the item was obtained from or belongs to the 

defendant. 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 

CONTINUE FILING DEADLINE AND COMPEL 

PRODUCTION OF DISCOVERY- 2

Marsha J. Pechman

United States District Judge

The Court finds that an order compelling discovery is not justified at this time. Defendant 

does not assert that the production of discovery by the Government has been dilatory, nor that 

the parties are not working cooperatively with respect to the exchange of discovery. (Dkt. No. 

30, at 2.) The Government asserts that discovery has been provided and “any additional 

discovery continues to be provided as it is received.” (Dkt. No. 36, at 7.) Defendant offers no 

specific evidence that the Government has failed to meet its duty to turn over relevant reports by 

the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or other relevant documents. Defendant also does not claim 

that the photographs it has received from the Government are not viewable. Absent any specific 

claims that the Government has failed to provide discovery in a timely fashion, Defendant’s 

motion to compel discovery is DENIED.

The Court also DENIES Defendant’s motion to extend the deadline for filing pretrial 

motions. Rule 45(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure states:

When an act must or may be done within a specified period, the court on its own 

may extend the time, or for good cause my do so on a party’s motion made: (A) 

before the originally prescribed or previously extended time expires; or (B) after 

the time expires if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect. 

The Court finds that the “difficult logistics involved in coordinating Discovery review between 

defense counsel and the defendant” does not constitute good cause. (Dkt. No. 30, at 7.) 

Defendant has offered no persuasive evidence why the deadline should be extended. Defendant’s 

motion to extend the deadline for filing pretrial motions is therefore DENIED.

The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.

Dated this 18th day of October, 2011.

A