JOINT STATUS REPORT ON CONTESTED DISCOVERY ISSUES Page 1

Terri Wood, OSB #883325

Law Office of Terri Wood, P.C.

730 Van Buren Street

Eugene, Oregon 97402

541-484-4171

Fax: 541-485-5923

Email: contact@terriwoodlawoffice.com

Attorney for Jon Ritzheimer

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff,

-VSAMMON BUNDY, et. al.

 Defendants

Case No. 3:16-CR-00051-BR

JOINT STATUS REPORT ON CONTESTED 

DISCOVERY ISSUES 1, 2, 3, and 7 (ECF

No. 699)

Pursuant to the Court’s June 17, 2016, Order, page 6 (ECF No. 726), 

attorneys for the government, Geoffrey Barrow, and on behalf of all Defendants, 

Terri Wood, have conferred anew to resolve contested discovery issues 1, 2, 3 

and 7 as identified in the Joint Status Report Regarding Discovery Issues 

Submitted In Advance Of The June 15, 2016, Status Conference (ECF no. 699).

The parties offer the following:

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 774 Filed 06/24/16 Page 1 of 6
JOINT STATUS REPORT ON CONTESTED DISCOVERY ISSUES Page 2

Issue #1: Production of “all seized digital media to all defendants”. 

The government has and will continue to produce forensic reports that 

document all evidence its agents have seized from these devices to all 

defendants.1 This evidence includes all co-conspirator statements, Rule 16 and 

Brady materials the government is aware of. 

Defense counsel2 find this limited disclosure acceptable, but reserve the 

right to make additional specific discovery demands if review of that data 

provides a good faith belief that additional information that may be contained on 

mirror images of any digital device should be disclosed. The government agrees 

to consider such requests, and also invites defense counsel to notify the 

government if counsel identifies discoverable material in his/her client’s mirror 

image of device(s) that has not been previously disclosed to all defendants. The 

government also has no objection to individual defendants sharing some or all of 

their client’s mirror image of device(s) with some or all other defendants.

The parties submit that no stipulated order for the above resolution is 

necessary.

 

1 The government seized the digital devices and applied for a warrant to search 

the contents of the devices. The government used forensic tools, including but 

not limited to FTK, to analyze the devices. Agents seized data that was 

responsive to the warrants and produced forensic reports that catalog the 

evidence seized. The disputed issue here involves the data that was not seized 

by the government because it was not responsive to the warrant.

2 Input from all defense counsel, including stand-by counsel, was sought via 

Survey Monkey and group emails. Reference to “defense counsel” as a group in 

this Report signifies that all who responded agree with the stated position.

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 774 Filed 06/24/16 Page 2 of 6
JOINT STATUS REPORT ON CONTESTED DISCOVERY ISSUES Page 3

Issue #2: Production of “Nevada discovery to defendants not 

charged in Nevada”. 

 

All existing discovery from the Nevada case has been provided in the 

Oregon case to the common defendants who face prosecution in both districts. 

The government has produced and will continue to produce materials from the 

District of Nevada that are discoverable under Rule 16 or Brady to all 

defendants. 

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Nevada has asked that the 

Nevada discovery not be disseminated to defendants who are not facing 

prosecution in Nevada for several reasons. First, the Nevada prosecutors, who 

are most familiar with the materials generated by and produced in the Nevada 

prosecution, have represented that the Nevada materials, with the exception of 

any materials that may have been produced separately in discovery in Oregon, 

are not discoverable in the Oregon case under Rule 16 or Brady. Second, the 

Nevada prosecution has serious concerns regarding witness safety. While there 

is a protective order in the District of Nevada, the Nevada prosecutors believe 

that materials have been released in violation of the protective order. If the 

Court would like more information regarding these concerns, the Nevada 

prosecutors are prepared to submit an ex parte affidavit pursuant to Rule 16(d) 

to further explain the issues. 

The government invites defense counsel with clients charged in Nevada 

to notify the government if counsel identifies discoverable material in his/her 

client’s Nevada discovery which has not been previously disclosed to all 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 774 Filed 06/24/16 Page 3 of 6
JOINT STATUS REPORT ON CONTESTED DISCOVERY ISSUES Page 4

defendants. A minority of defense counsel finds this acceptable, but would 

specifically reserve the right to seek additional information from the Nevada 

discovery.

A large majority of defense counsel seek production of all Nevada 

discovery that has been provided to their co-defendants who are also charged in 

Nevada, subject to the Oregon protective order, and would stipulate to be 

further restricted by application of the Nevada protective order to this particular 

discovery. Defense counsel contend that no reasonable basis exists for providing 

the Nevada case discovery only to Oregon defendants charged in Nevada; and 

that their right to a fair trial is prejudiced when only the government and select 

co-defendants have access to full discovery. Counsel for defendants charged 

jointly in Oregon and Nevada contend that the Nevada discovery would be 

helpful to their co-defendants charged only in Oregon. Given the likely volume of 

that discovery, delay in full disclosure adversely impacts Defendants’ ability to 

prepare for trial in September. As set forth above, the government opposes the 

release of the Nevada discovery to the non-common defendants. 

The parties agree that the Court should rule on this issue, and jointly 

propose that Defendants file a single motion for this discovery by July 1st, the 

Government file its Response by July 8th, and the Court then determine whether 

a Reply or Oral Argument is needed to rule on the motion.

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 774 Filed 06/24/16 Page 4 of 6
JOINT STATUS REPORT ON CONTESTED DISCOVERY ISSUES Page 5

Issue #3: Production of “large volume of email messages under 

review as of 5/18/16 that the Government believes will not be 

discoverable”. 

 

The government and the defense have agreed to continue conferring to 

identify discoverable email messages, including emails that the government may 

not currently have under review. To the extent practicable, Terri Wood with the 

assistance of other defense counsel will formulate specific requests for email 

messages and a basis for their production, and Ms. Wood will then confer with 

the government, through Geoffrey Barrow. If the parties cannot agree on 

production, those specific requests and the bases for the parties disputed 

positions will be brought to the Court’s attention through the weekly status 

reports.

Issue #7: Production of “all seized Facebook content to all 

defendants”. 

 

The government will produce reports and related materials that document 

all evidence its agents have seized from these accounts to all defendants.3 This 

evidence includes all co-conspirator statements Rule 16 and Brady materials the 

government is aware of. The anticipated production date is June 24th.

Defense counsel accept this limited disclosure, but reserve the right to 

make additional specific discovery demands if review of that data provides a 

 

3 Under the terms of the warrant, FaceBook provided data to the government. 

The government then used software to extract data that was responsive to the 

warrant and produced reports that catalog the evidence seized. The disputed 

issue here involves the data that was not seized by the government because it 

was not responsive to the warrant.

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 774 Filed 06/24/16 Page 5 of 6
JOINT STATUS REPORT ON CONTESTED DISCOVERY ISSUES Page 6

good faith belief that additional information should be disclosed. The 

government agrees to consider such requests, and also invites defense counsel 

to notify the government if counsel identifies discoverable material in his/her 

client’s Facebook records which has not been previously disclosed to all 

defendants. The government also has no objection to individual defendants 

sharing some or all of their client’s Facebook discovery with some or all other 

defendants. 

The parties submit that no stipulated order for the above resolution is 

necessary.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 24th day of June, 2016.

/s/ Terri Wood

TERRI WOOD OSB 883325

Attorney for Jon Ritzheimer

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 774 Filed 06/24/16 Page 6 of 6