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 further conferred to provide this update on 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 819 Filed 07/01/16 Page 1 of 4
JOINT STATUS REPORT ON CONTESTED DISCOVERY ISSUES Page 2

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

The parties reached agreement on this previously contested issue on 

June 24, 2016. See Joint Status Report (ECF No. 774).

The government has produced this discovery in Volume 41, produced on 

July 1, 2016. The parties submit that this issue is resolved and will be omitted 

from future Reports.

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. Defendants 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.

 

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.

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 819 Filed 07/01/16 Page 2 of 4
JOINT STATUS REPORT ON CONTESTED DISCOVERY ISSUES Page 3

As noted in the June 24, 2016 Report (ECF NO. 774), the parties after 

conferral agreed the Court should decide this contested issue, and proposed 

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.

Defendants will file their motion by July 1st. In the absence of further 

direction by the Court, the government will respond by July 8th.

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

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

discoverable”. 

 

As discussed in the June 24th Report, 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. 

During the past week, Defendants have not identified any such emails beyond 

those likely to be related to a pending discovery motion.

The defense has identified some authors (by reference to discovery Bates 

Numbers) and types of emails in the Reply to Government’s Response to 

Defendants’ the Motion To Compel Production of Law Enforcement Use and 

Display of Force (EFC No. 781), that defendants seek. Some or all of those 

emails may not be among those the government currently has under review. 

This issue should resolve when the Court rules on the motion.

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 819 Filed 07/01/16 Page 3 of 4
JOINT STATUS REPORT ON CONTESTED DISCOVERY ISSUES Page 4

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

defendants.” 2 

 

The parties reached agreement on this previously contested issue on 

June 24, 2016. See Joint Status Report (ECF No. 774).

The government has produced this discovery in Volumes 39 and 41.

The parties submit that this issue is resolved and will be omitted from 

future Reports.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 1st day of July, 2016.

/s/ Terri Wood

TERRI WOOD OSB 883325

Attorney for Jon Ritzheimer

 

2 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 819 Filed 07/01/16 Page 4 of 4