‘Mipute Order Form 296/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

win Magistrate uae Milton I. Shadur “non Asied Suge

CASE NUMBER 02 CR 366 DATE 7/9/2002

CASE USA vs. Ramona Jamaleddin

TITLE

[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.]
DOCKET ENTRY:
qd) q Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) o Brief in support of motion due
(3) o Answer briefto motion due__. Reply to answer briefdue__.
(4 o Ruling/Hearing onset for at
(5) im Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__—_—ssetfor__—_ at
(6) im Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on_____—setfor at
(7) Oo Trial[set for/re-set for] on_ at.
(8) oO [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continuedto at
(9) im This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
CFRCP4(m) (General Rule21 CIFRCP41(a)(1) CFRCP41(a\(2).

do) «xf [Other docket entry] | Enter Memorandum Order. Defendant’s motion for early return of trial

subpoenas is granted. (13-1) Defendant’s motion for notice of Intention is granted and the Government
is to produce all 404(b) material three weeks before trial. (12-1) Defendant’s motion for Immediate
Disclosure of Favorable Evidence and Motion for Disclosure of Evidence which may Lead to the
Impeachment are granted in part in that the Government is ordered to comply with its obligations under
Rule 16 and its Brady and Giglio obligations, but not more. (10-1, 11-1)

dl) @f [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required.
required umber of notices

o | Notices mailed by judge’s staff. JUL 10 2002

Notified counsel by telephone. date cocketed

Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form.

1ynos Lolussia sn
yes

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

: F/9/2002
courtroom 64:2 Hd 6- Wr 20 daze led notice
SN deputy’s .
initial Ts
ms Obosiste,
central Clerk's Office smaling deputy intals



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

)
)
)
)
v. ) No. 02 CR 366
RAMONA JAMALEDDIN,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM ORDER

At the last status hearing in this case on June 25, 2002, it
turned out that the government had not yet filed its response to
the motions that had earlier been timely filed on behalf of
defendant Ramona Jamaleddin (“Jamaleddin”). This Court then
granted Jamaleddin's unopposed motion for the early return of
trial subpoenas, and it asked government counsel to file a brief
response to the other pending motions. That brief response was
filed on the same day, so that the motions are ripe for
disposition.

Jamaleddin's “Motion for Immediate Disclosure of Favorable
Evidence” and her “Motion for Disclosure of Evidence Which May
Lead to the Impeachment of Any Government Witness” have been met
with the government's standard response based on the United
States Attorney's “open file” policy. As is pointed out
correctly by government counsel, those requests are overbroad to
the extent that they go beyond the requirements of Fed. R. Crim.

P. (*Rule”) 16. This Court therefore simply orders the United

/7


States to comply with its obligations under Rule 16 and its Brady
and Giglio obligations, but not more. It should be noted that
this ruling together with the government's acknowledgment of its
obligations do not render Jamaleddin's motion moot (something
that the government always urges by reason of its having
acknowledged its obligations in those respects) .

Next, to the extent that Jamaleddin's motions call for the
disclosure of Jencks Act materials (18 U.S.C. §3500), this Court
cannot of course override the statutory provision that specifies
the timing of the government's required disclosures. Instead
this Court welcomes the government's commitment to provide such
Jencks Act materials to defense counsel not later than three
weeks before the date of commencement of trial or, as to any
witness not yet known to government counsel, as soon as such
witness is identified.

Finally, as to Jamaleddin's “Motion for Notice of Intention
To Use Evidence of Other Crimes, Acts and Wrongs of Defendant,”
this Court also orders all such Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) material to
be produced three weeks before the commencement of trial. If the
government were to claim that any such material has not been
available early enough to provide that much lead time, it must
file a motion asking leave for later production.

Cee, Dobie

Milton I. Shadur
Date: July 8, 2002 Senior United States District Judge

2