IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

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. 

BROWN, Judge . 

3:16-cr-00051-BR 

ORDER 

The Court conducted a regular status hearing on April 6, 

2016, to address issues the parties raised since the last status 

1 - ORDER 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 389 Filed 04/11/16 Page 1 of 14
hearing on March 9, 2016, and to address case-management issues 

in general. On the record before the Court and in light of the 

parties' representations at the April 6, 2016, hearing, the Court 

makes the following Order: 

TRIAL DATE 

At the status hearing the government represented it will be 

prepared to go to trial at the beginning of September 2016. 

Although Defendants were previously unanimous in their request 

that this matter be set for trial as soon as practicable and even 

as early as April 2016, some Defendants indicated at this hearing 

that they did not believe they would be prepared to begin trial 

in September 2016 while others continued to request trial in 

early September. 

In setting the trial date, the Court considers the 

invocation of speedy-trial rights by multiple Defendants (many of 

whom remain in custody), the potential undue burden that multiple 

trials would likely impose on citizen jurors generally and 

witnesses in particular, and the increased system-wide costs that 

multiple trials would implicate. Accordingly, until further 

order, the Court sets a single trial for all Defendants that will 

begin with jury selection on Wednesday, September 7, 2016. 

The Court concludes it is presently premature for any party 

to seek a later trial date on the basis that there is 

2 - ORDER 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 389 Filed 04/11/16 Page 2 of 14
insufficient time between now and September 7, 2016, to prepare 

adequately for trial. As has been the case since the Court's 

first status hearing with the parties on February 24, 2016, the 

Court continues to expect experienced defense counsel to share 

the workload on common defense issues and not to repeat work done 

by other counsel that can be shared. In the meantime, the Court 

expects all parties to continue to prepare diligently for the 

trial and the Court will not consider any motion to continue the 

trial date filed before July 7, 2016, that is premised on the 

basis of insufficient time to prepare. Thereafter, any such 

motion must demonstrate a specific factual basis as to why, 

despite diligent preparation, the moving party cannot be ready 

for trial on September 7, 2016. 

Accordingly, based on the record as a whole, including the 

Court's Order (#289) Designating Case as Complex, the Court 

strikes all previously set dates and finds excludable delay under 

the Speedy Trial Act through the new trial date of September 7, 

2016. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). 

The Court directs the parties to provide an update on their 

progress in making trial preparations and their respective 

positions regarding the ongoing feasibility of the trial date in 

the Joint Status Report preceding the June 15, 2016, status 

hearing. 

3 - ORDER 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 389 Filed 04/11/16 Page 3 of 14
JURY PLAN 

Within the coming weeks, the Court intends to distribute to 

the parties for their review and feedback a tentative plan 

regarding the surrunonsing and selection of a jury. In the 

meantime, the Court invites the parties to submit their 

respective preliminary recorrunendations in a single, joint letter 

to the Court no later than April 27, 2016. 

In addition, no later than June 15, 2016, the parties must 

file a single, joint statement regarding proposed preliminary 

jury instructions that contains: (1) A neutral statement of the 

case the Court may use during Jury Selection, (2) proposed jury 

instructions as to the elements of all charged offenses, and 

(3) proposed instructions regarding any substantive defensive 

matters. To the extent that the parties dispute certain proposed 

language and wish to offer alternative language, counsel should 

include the proposed alternatives within the single filing in any 

way that makes the differences obvious together with footnotes 

concisely stating the reason one version is a more correct 

statement of the law than another. The Court will conduct a 

hearing on these proposed preliminary instructions at the July 6, 

2016, status hearing. 

4 - ORDER 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 389 Filed 04/11/16 Page 4 of 14
MOTIONS PRACTICE 

In their Joint Status Report on Timing and Sequencing of 

Motions (#336) Defendants stated they anticipate filing the 

following in the first round of pretrial motions: 

1. Defendants' Motions to Dismiss the Indictment 

(Facial Challenges) 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

Motion 

Motion 

Motion 

Motion 

Motion 

for 

to 

to 

to 

to 

Bill of Particulars 

Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction 

Strike Surplusage 

Dismiss for Speedy Trial Violations 

Dismiss for Due Process Violations 

Because the Court does not intend to submit a charging 

instrument to the jury, a motion to strike surplusage is not 

necessary, would be a waste of resources to file and to consider, 

and, therefore, should not be filed. Moreover, unless and until 

a Defendant has a factual basis to assert an actual speedy-trial 

violation, a motion to dismiss on that basis is premature and 

should not be filed. 

The Court directs Defendants to file the remaining motions 

they specified and any other motions concerning purely legal 

matters no later than April 27, 2016. The government's responses 

to Defendants' anticipated motions are due no later than May 11, 

2016. No reply memoranda are permitted. The substance within 

memoranda in support of the motions and responses may not exceed 

5 - ORDER 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 389 Filed 04/11/16 Page 5 of 14
10 pages in length unless after a good-cause showing before the 

motion and/or response is filed the Court grants leave to file a 

longer memorandum. The Court directs the parties to confer and 

to contact the Clerk no later than April 11, 2016, with proposed 

dates for the Court to conduct a hearing sometime between May 18, 

2016, and May 26, 2016, on these pretrial motions. 

In addition to the described purely-legal motions, 

Defendants represented during the status hearing that it would 

take considerable additional time to determine whether to file 

and, if so, to prepare and to support a motion for change of 

venue. 

The Court has considered whether such a motion should be 

pursued before voir dire, and concludes it should not. "When a 

trial court is 'unable to seat an impartial jury because of 

prejudicial pretrial publicity or an inflamed community 

atmosphere[,] ... due process requires that the trial court grant 

defendant's motion for a change of venue.'" Hayes v. Ayers, 632 

F.3d 500, 507-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Harris v. Pulley, 885 

F.2d 1354, 1361 (9th Cir. 1988)). 

There are "two different types of prejudice in support of a 

motion to transfer venue: presumed or actual." United States v. 

Sherwood, 98 F.3d 402, 410 (9th Cir. 1996). See also Hayes, 632 

F.3d at 508. "'A presumption of prejudice' because of adverse 

press coverage 'attends only the extreme case'" in which a 

6 - ORDER 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 389 Filed 04/11/16 Page 6 of 14
"'barrage of inflammatory publicity immediately prior to trial,' 

amount[s] to a 'huge . wave of public passion'" against 

Defendants. Id. at 508-10 (quoting Skilling v. United States, 

561 U.S. 358, 381 (2010), and Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. 1025, 

1033 (1984)). "Actual prejudice, on the other hand, exists when 

voir dire reveals that the jury pool harbors 'actual partiality 

or hostility [against the defendant] that [cannot] be laid 

aside.'" Hayes, 632 F.3d at 508 (quoting Harris, 885 F.2d at 

1363). 

Although in this case there was considerable media coverage 

of the underlying events that took place in Malheur County in 

January and February of this year, the Court notes the coverage 

of those underlying events has since waned. Moreover, more than 

seven months will have elapsed between the end of those 

underlying events and the start of trial. Finally, the Court 

notes the September 7, 2016, trial is set to take place in 

Portland, Oregon, which is geographically quite remote from the 

community in which the underlying events took place. 

Accordingly, it appears to the Court that this case is not the 

sort of "extreme case" to which any presumption of prejudice 

might attach. 

In any event, the Court concludes it cannot determine until 

voir dire whether any Defendants have been actually prejudiced by 

media coverage of this case. See Hayes, 632 F.3d at 508. This 

7 - ORDER 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 389 Filed 04/11/16 Page 7 of 14
case will have a robust voir dire process to determine whether 

any potential jurors have been unduly influenced by media 

coverage among other issues. See Hayes, 632 F.3d at 511 (finding 

although 42 of 78 "ultimately 'qualified' jurors had some degree 

of familiarity with the pretrial press coverage, 

'[p]rominence does not necessarily produce prejudice, and juror 

impartiality . does not require ignorance.'n) (quoting 

Skilling, 561 U.S. at 381). 

Before conducting that voir dire process, therefore, the 

Court concludes there is not any way that the Court can determine 

in fact whether the jury pool may have been sufficiently tainted 

to require a change of venue. Accordingly, the Court also 

concludes there does not seem to be any purpose to Defendants 

devoting time and resources to filing a motion to transfer venue 

before engaging in and evaluating the voir dire process. In the 

event Defendants contend the voir dire process demonstrates that 

the Court cannot seat an impartial jury from the panel of 

prospective jurors summoned, Defendants may file a motion to 

change venue at that time. 

The Court also directs the parties to confer regarding a 

schedule for the anticipated second round of pretrial motions and 

to include in their Joint Status Report due April 28, 2016, their 

proposals identifying the motions to be filed, their proposed 

briefing deadlines, and the proposed dates for any necessary 

8 - ORDER 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 389 Filed 04/11/16 Page 8 of 14
evidentiary hearing(s) and/or for oral argument on the second 

round of anticipated pretrial motions. 

PENDING MOTIONS 

I. Defendant Ammon Bundy's Memorandum (#365) in Opposition to 

Signed Protective Order and Motion to Modify 

Because Anunon Bundy did not file his Memorandum in 

Opposition sufficiently in advance of the Court's status 

hearing,' the Court did not address the substance of his 

Opposition. The Court directed the government to file its 

response to Bundy's Opposition no later than April 13, 2016. The 

Court will then address the matter without oral argument. 

II. Defendants' Motion (#357) for Stay of Order Pending 

Appellate Review 

The Court conducted oral argument on the Motion (#357) for 

Stay of Order Pending Appellate Review filed by Defendants Ryan 

Payne, Anunon Bundy, Brian Cavalier, Blaine Cooper, and Ryan 

Bundy. In particular, this group of Defendants moves to stay the 

Court's Order (#334) issued March 22, 2016, in which the Court 

vacated its Interim Order (#313); directed the United States 

Marshal to transport those Defendants to the District of Nevada 

1 The Court reminds the parties that, unless otherwise 

directed by the Court, any issues to be addressed at a regular 

status hearing (including oppositions to other Defendants' 

positions) must be either included in the parties' Joint Status 

Report ahead of that hearing or must be filed in a separate 

motion that is fully briefed by the parties no later than the 

Thursday before the regular status hearing. 

9 - ORDER 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 389 Filed 04/11/16 Page 9 of 14
on April 13, 2016, for the purpose of conducting their first 

appearances on charges brought in that court; and directed the 

United States Marshal to return those Defendants to the District 

of Oregon no later than April 25, 2016. 

The Court considers four factors in determining whether to 

issue a stay of its Order pending appeal: "'(l) whether the stay 

applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed 

on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably 

injured absent a stay; ( 3) whether issuance of the stay will 

substantially injure the other parties interested in the 

proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.'" Nken v. 

Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009) (quoting Hilton v. Braunskill, 

481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987)). 

In light of the short-term nature of the trip to Nevada, the 

Court concludes these Defendants have not made a "strong showing" 

that they are likely to prevail on the merits. See Nken, 556 

U.S. at 434. The Court also concludes these Defendants' shortterm trip to Nevada for the purpose of making their initial 

appearances in a separate, but similarly complex criminal 

proceeding in that District, will not cause these Defendants 

irreparable harm. To the contrary, the short-term trip to Nevada 

will provide these Defendants with the opportunity to consult 

with their counsel in Nevada and to be present at hearings to 

determine what, if any, progress can be made in those proceedings 

10 - ORDER 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 389 Filed 04/11/16 Page 10 of 14
between now and the conclusion of this case. 

Similarly, the Court concludes Defendants' short-term trip 

to Nevada is in the public interest because it will permit the 

District of Nevada to have the opportunity to determine what 

progress can be made in that matter between now and the date that 

these Defendants become available to the District of Nevada upon 

conclusion of this case. 

In summary, the Court concludes the factors identified in 

Nken weigh against the issuance of a stay of the Court's Order. 

Accordingly, on this record the Court DENIES the Motion (#357) 

for Stay of Order Pending Appellate Review filed by Defendants 

Ryan Payne, Ammon Bundy, Brian Cavalier, Blaine Cooper, and Ryan 

Bundy. 

III. Defendant Medenbach's Motion (#361) for Reconsideration 

On April 4, 2016, Defendant Kenneth Medenbach filed a Motion 

(#361) for Reconsideration of the Court's Order (#298) issued 

March 11, 2016, in which the Court denied Medenbach's oral Motion 

to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. The Court 

directed the government to file its response no later than 

April 13, 2016, at which time the Court will take the matter 

under advisement without oral argument. 

DISCOVERY 

The Court appointed three defense counsel (Terri Wood, 

11 - ORDER 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 389 Filed 04/11/16 Page 11 of 14
Laurie Shertz, and Robert W. Rainwater) to serve as Defendants' 

Discovery Committee for the purpose of coordinating the 

production and distribution of discovery with the government 

(represented by Assistant United States Attorney Geoffrey A. 

Barrow) and the Criminal Justice Act Panel Office (CJA Panel 

Office) within the office of the Federal Public Defender. The 

Court directs Defendants' Discovery Committee, the government, 

and the CJA Panel Office to confer regularly regarding the 

government's production of discovery and the distribution of 

those materials to the various Defendants. 

Beginning April 13, 2016, the Court directs Defendants' 

Discovery Committee and the government to provide the Court with 

weekly updates each Wednesday2 as to the government's progress 

made in producing discovery to Defendants, the Defendants' 

respective access to discovery, and any conflicts that the 

parties have been unable to resolve after full conferral. The 

requirement of weekly discovery updates remains in effect until 

the government has certified substantial compliance with its 

discovery obligations. 

The Court also directs Defendants' Discovery Committee, the 

government, and the CJA Panel Office to address the concerns 

raised in the Objections of Defendant Jason Charles Blomgren 

2 The updates must be in the form of a single, joint letter 

to the Court. 

12 - ORDER 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 389 Filed 04/11/16 Page 12 of 14
(#343) and Jon Ritzheimer (#350) to the Joint Status Report on 

Discovery Management (#337). Accordingly, the Court finds those 

objections to be moot at this time, but with leave to renew if 

the issues are not resolved. 

MISCELLANEOUS 

The Court directs the government through Assistant United 

States Attorney Geoffrey A. Barrow to continue his efforts to 

assist Amy Baggio, attorney for Defendant Joseph O'Shaughnessy, 

in establishing consistent communication with her client who has 

been in custody in the District of Nevada. 

In addition, Defendants Ryan Bundy and Medenbach, who are 

both representing themselves pro se with the assistance of 

standby counsel, advised the Court at the status hearing of their 

concerns regarding their access to discovery and legal materials 

while in custody. The Court reminds both of the Defendants that 

this issue is one of the challenges that they accepted when 

asserting their right to self-representation, and they must rely 

on standby counsel to facilitate their access and communication 

issues. The Court notes Ryan Bundy at the hearing stated that he 

plans to file a formal motion regarding his access to discovery 

and legal materials. Accordingly, the Court will address this 

issue for both Medenbach and Bundy in due course after the filing 

of such motion. 

13 - ORDER 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 389 Filed 04/11/16 Page 13 of 14
REGULAR MAY STATUS HEARING 

The next status hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, May 4, 

2016. Any Defendant who wishes to waive his or her appearance at 

that hearing must file a signed waiver of appearance no later 

than April 21, 2016. The parties' Joint Status Report ahead of 

that hearing is due no later than Thursday, April 28, 2016. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this 11th day of April, 2016. 

ANNA J. BROWN 

United States District Judge 

14 - ORDER 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 389 Filed 04/11/16 Page 14 of 14