Lisa Hay

Federal Public Defender

Rich Federico

Assistant Federal Public Defender

101 S.W. Main Street, Suite 1700

Portland, Oregon 97204

(503) 326-2123 Telephone

(503) 326-5524 Facsimile

Lisa_Hay@fd.org

Rich_Federico@fd.org

Attorneys for Defendant Ryan Payne

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMMON BUNDY, JON RITZHEIMER,

JOSEPH O’SHAUGHNESSY,

RYAN PAYNE, RYAN BUNDY,

BRIAN CAVALIER, SHAWNA COX,

PETER SANTILLI, JASON PATRICK,

DUANE LEO EHMER,

DYLAN ANDERSON, SEAN ANDERSON,

DAVID LEE FRY,

JEFF WAYNE BANTA,

SANDRA LYNN ANDERSON, 

KENNETH MEDENBACH, BLAINE

COOPER, WESLEY KJAR, COREY

LEQUIEU, NEIL WAMPLER, JASON

CHARLES BLOMGREN, DARRYL

WILLIAM THORN, GEOFFREY

STANEK, TRAVIS COX, ERIC

LEE FLORES, and JAKE RYAN,

Defendants.

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

JOINT STATUS REPORT

PAGE 1. JOINT STATUS REPORT

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 488 Filed 04/28/16 Page 1 of 8
The defendants, through AFPD Rich Federico, and the government, through AUSA Ethan 

Knight, submit the following Joint Status Report, in accordance with the Court’s Case Order 

March 9, 2016 (Docket No. 389). 

CERTIFICATION OF CONFERRAL: Undersigned counsel certifies that Assistant 

United States Attorney Ethan Knight was provided a copy of, and consulted regarding the content 

of, this Joint Status Report. Both the government and the defense positions are set forth herein.

PROPOSED AGENDA FOR STATUS CONFERENCE OF MAY 4, 2016

The parties propose the following agenda items be addressed at the status conference to be 

held on May 4, 2016:

1. Arraignment for Mr. O’Shaughnessy (Counsel – Ms. Baggio);

2. Mr. Flores Trial Dates Conflicts (Counsel – Mr. Warren) (Docs. 379, Order, 394);

3. Mr. Cox Trial Dates / Speedy Trial (Counsel – Mr. Hood) (Doc. 461);

4. Discovery Issues:

a. Defendant David Fry’s motion to compel production of law enforcement 

communications regarding invocation of 5th and 6th Amendment rights prior to 

interrogation (Counsel – Mr. Olson);

b. F.R.E. 404(b) Issues (Counsel – Ms. Maxfield, motion expected);

c. Bruton Statements (Counsel – Mr. Halley, motion pending);

d. Motion For Preservation Order, Dispute #1 on Doc. 442 (Joint Status Report 

Regarding Discovery); Defense Motion filed 04/25/16 (Doc. 456); Motion to be 

argued at May status conference (Ms. Wood or Mr. Coan) (Order, Doc. 445) ;

PAGE 2. JOINT STATUS REPORT

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 488 Filed 04/28/16 Page 2 of 8
e. Overall compliance with District of Oregon, Standing Order No. 2015-5, (including 

deadline for production of Brady materials and others delineated within the District 

of Oregon Standing Order 2015-5) (Mr. Kohlmetz);

f. Production of Transcripts of video recordings to be used as evidence, Dispute #2 

on Doc. 442; Issue to be discussed at May status conference if transcripts have not 

been produced to defendants (Order, Doc. 445) (Mr. Coan);

5. Discussion re: notice of national security investigation methods pursuant to Fed. R. 

Crim. P. 16, 18 U.S.C. § 3504, and District Of Oregon, Standing Order 2015-5)

(Ms. Baggio);

6. Discussion re: electronic surveillance information and protocol for “filter team” 

within the U.S. Attorney’s Office (District Of Oregon, Standing Order 2015-5)

(Ms. Baggio) ;

7. Discussion regarding Change of Venue Motion, Funding and Timing (Mr. 

Kohlmetz);

8. Timing of Round 2 Motions (Doc. 389; Court’s email of 4/13/16; proposal set forth 

below) (Ms. Baggio) ;

9. Proposal and Plan for Jury Summons and Selection (Doc. 389; Court’s email of 

4/21/16; Joint Letter of 4/27/16) (Mr. Federico) ;

10. Effect of Pretrial Detention; issues set forth below (Mr. Arnold, Ms. Ludwig, and 

Mr. Federico)

a. Custodial status of defendants and the effect of transporting them between judicial 

districts

b. Monitoring of attorney-client phone calls in Nevada

PAGE 3. JOINT STATUS REPORT

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 488 Filed 04/28/16 Page 3 of 8
c. In-custody defendants’ access to materials to assist in their defense

d. Solitary confinement as an impediment to self-representation; and 

11. Ex Parte Discussion between CJA Attorneys and the Court.

CURRENT DEADLINES AND PROPOSED ROUND TWO MOTION SCHEDULE

In response to the Court’s Order (Doc. 389 at 8), the parties have conferred regarding a 

proposal for the second round of pretrial motions (hereafter “Round Two”). 

Defendants’ Position:

While agreeing to the schedule set forth below, certain defenders wish to make the record 

clear as to their difficulties in complying with the Court’s condensed litigation schedule, including 

delays in funding requests to move forward with needed support services, as well as their 

obligations related to other cases and previously scheduled out-of-town dates. Defendants will 

make best efforts to comply with the proposed schedule set forth herein; however, they wish to 

make clear their reservation that intervening events may require extensions of the timelines set 

forth below. 

In order to assist the Court and the parties in addressing the various deadlines, the parties 

thought it would be helpful to provide a list of the current deadlines as well as the proposed 

deadlines regarding Round Two Motion Litigation. The current dates and proposed dates (in red)

are as follows:

Apr. 28, 2016 Joint Status Report, May Status Conference (Doc. 389)

May 4, 2016 (1) May Status Conference, 9:30AM; 

(2) Weekly Discovery Update

May 11, 2016 (1) Government Responses to Defendants’ Round One Motions;

(2) Weekly Discovery Update

May 23-25, 2016 Oral Argument, Defendants’ Round One Motions 

PAGE 4. JOINT STATUS REPORT

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 488 Filed 04/28/16 Page 4 of 8
May 25, 2016 Weekly Discovery Update

June 1, 2016 Weekly Discovery Update (unless by now government has “certified 

substantial compliance with its discovery obligations” (Doc. 389 at 12))

June 8, 2016 Weekly Discovery Update (unless by now government has “certified 

substantial compliance with its discovery obligations” (Doc. 389 at 12))

June 9, 2016 (1) Joint Status Report In Advance Of June Status Conference, including 

update on trial preparations and feasibility of trial date (Doc. 389 at 3); 

(2) Waiver of Appearances for June Status Conference

June 15, 2016 (1) PROPOSED Round Two Defendants’ Motions Due (see chart below);

(2) June Status Conference, 9:30AM (Doc. 284; Doc. 389 at 3), 

PROPOSED To Include Update Regarding Number of Dates Needed For 

Round Two Hearings (discussed below); 

(3) Single Joint Statement regarding (i) neutral statement of the case; (ii) 

proposed jury instructions as to the elements of all charged offenses; and 

(iii) proposed instructions regarding substantive defenses (Doc. 389 at 4); 

(4) Weekly Discovery Update (unless by now government has “certified 

substantial compliance with its discovery obligations” (Doc. 389 at 12)).

June 22, 2016 Weekly Discovery Update (unless by now government has “certified 

substantial compliance with its discovery obligations” (Doc. 389 at 12))

June 29, 2016 (1) Weekly Discovery Update (unless by now government has “certified 

substantial compliance with its discovery obligations” (Doc. 389 at 12));

(2) PROPOSED Round Two Government Responses (see chart below).

June 30, 2016 Joint Status Report In Advance Of July Status Conference

July 6, 2016 July Status Conference, 9:30AM, including argument regarding jury 

instructions and neutral statement of the case (Doc. 389 at 4)

July 7, 2016 First Date Motions To Continue Trial Based Upon Insufficient Time to 

Prepare Are Permitted

July 11-15, and/or (1) PROPOSED Hearings On Round Two Motions (see chart below) 

July 18-22, 20161 (2) Trial Memoranda; Expert Disclosures; Government Witness and

Exhibits Lists2

1 Defenders Harris and Ludwig are scheduled to be in a state court trial during this week of July. 

2 This date comes from the Court’s email on 4/5/16 as a tentative date. It was not contained within 

the last Court Order (Doc. 389) regarding scheduling. If, the Court orders trial documents due on 

PAGE 5. JOINT STATUS REPORT

 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 488 Filed 04/28/16 Page 5 of 8
July 28, 2016 Joint Status Report In Advance Of August Status Conference

Aug. 3, 2016 August Status Conference, 9:30AM

Aug. 24, 2016 Pretrial Conference, 9:30AM

Sep. 7, 2016 Jury selection begins (Doc. 389 at 2)

ROUND 2 MOTIONS IDENTIFIED BY DEFENDANTS

The general list of motions the defendants have currently3 identified as falling within 

Round 2, evidentiary hearing-type motions, are as follows:

2.A Defendants’ Motions Related To Disputed Discovery Issues

2.B Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss For Destruction Of Evidence

2.C Defendant=s Motions To Suppress Evidence Obtained In Violation 

Of The Fourth Amendment (Search & Seizure Motions)

2.D Defendant=s Motions To Suppress Evidence Obtained In Violation 

Of The Fifth Amendment (Miranda Challenges)

2.E Defendant=s Motions To Suppress Evidence Obtained In Violation 

Of The Sixth Amendment (Right To Counsel, Fair Trial 

Challenges)

this date, the parties request leave to resubmit a plan for Round 2 motions, as the parties agree that 

they will need resolution of Round 2 motions prior to submitting trial documents.

3 Because both review of discovery and discovery production are ongoing, this list offers 

defendants’ current best estimate of the number and type of Round 2 motions; defendants 

respectfully request leave to revise this list, as necessary. 

PAGE 6. JOINT STATUS REPORT

 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 488 Filed 04/28/16 Page 6 of 8
2.F Defendants’ Motion(s) For Jury-Related Process Issues 

(Questionnaires, Etc.) 

2.G Defendants’ Motion(s) Related To Grand Jury Problem(s)

2H Defendants Rule 41 Motions For Return Of Property (minimum of 

one motion, perhaps others per discovery review)

Regarding the length of time to argue each motion, defendants request that the Court 

postpone a discussion as to the needed time to for evidentiary hearings and argument until the June 

Status Conference (June 15, 2016), which is also the same date that the Defendants’ Round Two 

Motions would be due under the proposed schedule. The parties would respectfully request at this 

time that the Court determine if possible to reserve the Court’s calendar from July 11 until July 

22. If, based on the number and type of motions ultimately filed on June 15 (or on whatever date 

ultimately ordered by the Court) fewer days for evidentiary hearing are necessary, the parties may 

report in terms of an update at the June 15, 2016, June Status Conference. 

CUSTODIAL CONDITIONS OF CO-DEFENDANTS AND

TRANSFER BETWEEN JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Defendants’ Position:

The simultaneous prosecution of several co-defendants in this case is creating immense 

problems for counsel to provide effective assistance of counsel in Oregon. Meaningful 

participation in fair, credible, and diligent pre-trial litigation is all but impossible when the 

defendants are always over 1,000 miles away from one of their legal teams. This problem is 

exacerbated by the conditions of incarceration that the facilities are imposing on these men. Even 

PAGE 7. JOINT STATUS REPORT

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 488 Filed 04/28/16 Page 7 of 8
despite the helpfulness and professionalism of the Oregon AUSAs, these defendants will inevitably 

be placed in the untenable position of choosing between a speedy trial and a fair one, despite that 

choice being expressly prohibited by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

These men are being forced to formulate their legal defenses without even having access 

to a real pen, and are forced to painstakingly write, by hand, the documents to assist their attorneys 

in defending them against the full weight of the Government in two prosecutions already deemed 

complex by two courts. They are then, since being transferred, forced to choose between conferring 

with their counsel on recorded lines or not at all. These men want to be directly involved in the 

preparation of their defense, and they are being denied that opportunity. The incarceration 

conditions, the ping-pong transfer between judicial districts, and the lack of access to counsel are 

working a severe prejudice to these co-defendants and counsel respectfully requests that solutions 

to these problems be discussed with the Court and counsel at the next status conference.

Government Position:

It is the government’s position that the Court should manage the transport of defendants 

consistent with its earlier Orders and in conjunction with the District of Nevada in a manner that 

best serves the interests of justice.

Respectfully submitted this 28th day of April, 2016.

___________________________

Rich Federico

Assistant Federal Public Defender

Attorney for Mr. Payne

PAGE 8. JOINT STATUS REPORT

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 488 Filed 04/28/16 Page 8 of 8