PAGE 1. JOINT STATUS REPORT 

Lisa Hay, OSB #980628 

Federal Public Defender 

Rich Federico, IN Bar #23818-89 

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 PFEIFER ANDERSON, 

and KENNETH MEDENBACH, 

Defendants. 

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

JOINT STATUS REPORT 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 244 Filed 03/07/16 Page 1 of 10
PAGE 2. JOINT STATUS REPORT 

The defendants, through FPD Lisa Hay, and the government, through AUSA Geoffrey 

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

Management Order of February 25, 2016 (Docket No. 210). 

PROPOSED AGENDA FOR STATUS CONFERENCE OF MARCH 9, 2016 

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

held on March 9, 2016: 

1. Arraignment on anticipated Superseding Indictment for all defendants present; 

2. Discovery management; 

3. Government’s Motion for Designation as a Complex Case (Docket No. 185); 

4. Proposed dates for trial and pretrial motions litigation; and 

5. Government’s Motion for Protective Order. 

SPEEDY TRIAL ACT 

The Court ordered the parties to include a calculation of the outside trial date currently 

permissible under the Speedy Trial Act for each defendant in this case and United States v. Cooper, 

3:16-cr-00064-JO, which has not been consolidated or joined as of the date of this filing. (Minute 

Order, ¶ 2, Docket No. 207; Case Management Order, at 4-5.) Under the Act, a trial for a defendant 

charged by indictment shall commence within seventy days from the filing of the indictment or 

from the date the defendant has appeared before a judicial officer of the court in which such a 

charge is pending, whichever date last occurs. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1). The parties agree that 

the following dates and calculation are accurate for all defendants, in both cases: 

 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 244 Filed 03/07/16 Page 2 of 10
PAGE 3. JOINT STATUS REPORT 

DEFENDANT CASE NO. DATE OF 

INITIAL 

APPEARANCE

DATE OF 

INDICTMENT 

SPEEDY TRIAL 

DEADLINE 

Ammon Bundy 3:16-cr-00051-

BR-1 

1/27/2016 2/03/2016 4/13/2016 

(+70 from 

indictment) 

Jon Ritzheimer 3:16-cr-00051-

BR-2 

1/27/2016 (in 

Arizona case no. 

2:16-mj-06019-

DKD-1) 

2/24/16 

IA/Arraignment 

in Oregon 

2/03/2016 5/4/2016 

(+70 from 1st 

appearance in 

OR) 

Joseph 

O’Shaughnessy 

3:16-cr-00051-

BR-3 

1/27/2016 2/03/2016 4/13/2016 

(+70 from 

indictment) 

Ryan Payne 3:16-cr-00051-

BR-4 

1/27/2016 2/03/2016 4/13/2016 

(+70 from 

indictment) 

Ryan Bundy 3:16-cr-00051-

BR-5 

1/27/2016 2/03/2016 4/13/2016 

(+70 from 

indictment) 

Brian Cavalier 3:16-cr-00051-

BR-6 

1/27/2016 2/03/2016 4/13/2016 

(+70 from 

indictment) 

Shawna Cox 3:16-cr-00051-

BR-7 

1/27/2016 2/03/2016 4/13/2016 

(+70 from 

indictment) 

Peter Santilli 3:16-cr-00051-

BR-8 

1/27/2016 2/03/2016 4/13/2016 

(+70 from 

indictment) 

Jason Patrick 3:16-cr-00051-

BR-9 

1/28/2016 2/03/2016 4/13/2016 

(+70 from 

indictment) 

Duane Leo 

Ehmer 

3:16-cr-00051-

BR-10 

1/28/2016 2/03/2016 4/13/2016 

(+70 from 

indictment) 

Dylan 

Anderson 

3:16-cr-00051-

BR-11 

1/28/2016 2/03/2016 4/13/2016 

(+70 from 

indictment) 

Sean Anderson 3:16-cr-00051-

BR-12 

2/12/2016 2/03/2016 4/22/02016 

(+70 from 1st 

Appearance) 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 244 Filed 03/07/16 Page 3 of 10
PAGE 4. JOINT STATUS REPORT 

DEFENDANT CASE NO. DATE OF 

INITIAL 

APPEARANCE

DATE OF 

INDICTMENT 

SPEEDY TRIAL 

DEADLINE 

David Lee Fry 3:16-cr-00051-

BR-13 

2/12/2016 2/03/2016 4/22/02016 

(+70 from 1st 

Appearance) 

Jeff Wayne 

Banta 

3:16-cr-00051-

BR-14 

2/12/2016 2/03/2016 4/22/02016 

(+70 from 1st 

Appearance) 

Sandra Lynn 

Anderson 

3:16-cr-00051-

BR-15 

2/12/2016 2/03/2016 4/22/02016 

(+70 from 1st 

Appearance) 

Kenneth 

Medenbach 

3:16-cr-00051-

BR-16 

2/24/2016 2/03/2016 5/4/2016 

(+70 from 1st 

Appearance) 

Blaine Cooper 3:16-cr-00064-

JO-1 

2/12/2016 (in 

Utah case no. 

2:16-mj-00088-

RTB-1) 

3/2/2016 

IA/Arraignment 

in Oregon 

2/10/2016 5/11/2016 

(+70 from 1st 

Appearance in 

OR) 

Wesley Kjar 3:16-cr-00064-

JO-2 

3/2/2016 2/10/2016 5/11/2016 

(+70 from 1st 

appearance) 

Corey Lequieu 3:16-cr-00064-

JO-3 

2/22/2016 2/10/2016 5/02/2016 

(+70 from 1st 

Appearance) 

Neil Wampler 3:16-cr-00064-

JO-4 

3/2/2016 2/10/2016 5/11/2016 

(+70 from 1st 

appearance) 

Jason Charles 

Blomgren 

3:16-cr-00064-

JO-5 

3/2/2016 2/10/2016 5/11/2016 

(+70 from 1st 

appearance) 

Darryl William 

Thorn 

3:16-cr-00064-

JO-6 

2/12/2016 2/10/2016 4/22/2016 

(+70 from 1st 

Appearance) 

Geoffrey 

Stanek 

3:16-cr-00064-

JO-7 

2/12/2016 2/10/2016 4/22/2016 

(+70 from 1st 

Appearance) 

Travis Cox 3:16-cr-00064-

JO-8 

None 2/10/2016 TBD 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 244 Filed 03/07/16 Page 4 of 10
PAGE 5. JOINT STATUS REPORT 

DEFENDANT CASE NO. DATE OF 

INITIAL 

APPEARANCE

DATE OF 

INDICTMENT 

SPEEDY TRIAL 

DEADLINE 

Eric Lee Flores 3:16-cr-00064-

JO-9 

None 02/10/2016 TBD 

In a previous filing (Docket No. 183), all defendants in the present case asserted their 

respective constitutional and statutory right to a speedy trial. See U.S. Const. Amend VI; 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3161, et. seq. The defendants hereby reaffirm the demand for a speedy trial and object to any 

delay of that date. 

Additionally, the Court deferred ruling on the government’s motion to designate the case 

complex (Docket No. 185). All defendants in the present case previously opposed designation of 

the case as complex, noting such a designation will infringe upon speedy trial rights (Docket No. 

182). At the hearing on February 24, 2016, the Court requested the defendants to provide any 

applicable case law that held it to be error for the district court to designate a case as complex 

under the same or similar facts and circumstances as the present case. 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7), the Court must make a finding that the “ends of justice” 

are served in designating the case complex and granting the government additional time, over the 

objection of the defense. In its motion for complex case designation, the government lists the 

factors the Court must consider for a complex designation under (h)(7)(B)(ii), including: the 

number of defendants, the nature of the prosecution, or the existence of novel questions of fact or 

law. 

A denial of a motion for a finding of complexity is reviewed for clear error. See United 

States v. Kamer, 781 F.2d 1380, 1389 (9th Cir. 1986). A review of the case law informs that a 

court’s designation of a case as complex turns upon the facts and circumstances of the particular 

case, with a majority of cases holding that it was not “clear error” for the district court to designate 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 244 Filed 03/07/16 Page 5 of 10
PAGE 6. JOINT STATUS REPORT 

a case as complex. See, e.g., United States v. Lewis, 611 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2010) (affirming 

complex case designation because the “case involved voluminous discovery, a large number of 

counts, several defendants, ongoing investigations in other districts, and potential witnesses from 

other countries.”); United States v. Butz, 982 F.2d 1378, 1381 (9th Cir. 1993) (holding that an 

“ends of justice” continuance is proper when a case is complex and involves multiple 

“codefendants and multiple overt acts occurring in [multiple] states,” and in which the complexity 

“outweigh[s] the interests of individual defendants”). 

The defense position is that unsupported assertions in briefs are not evidence, see, e.g., 

Comstock v. Humphries, 786 F.3d 701, 709 (9th Cir. 2015), and that the government’s arguments 

regarding complexity are premature. The government argues the case is complex due to 

“anticipated” discovery issues, additional defendants “likely to be charged,” the “unique nature of 

the crime scene,” and that “many of the defendants have had relevant law enforcement contact in 

other districts.” (Docket No. 185, p. 3.) At the current posture of the case, the defense position is 

that the government has not yet made a colorable showing of the statutory factors that would render 

the case complex. 

The government position is set out in their filed motion to designate the case complex 

(Docket No. 185). 

PROPOSED CASE SCHEDULE / DATES 

The Court directed the parties to confer on a suggested case litigation dates and to propose 

dates to the Court. (Case Management Order, at 5.) At the outset, the defense maintains its previous 

objections to the complex case designation or any other exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial 

Act. Assuming without conceding that the Court will find a basis to exclude time under the Speedy 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 244 Filed 03/07/16 Page 6 of 10
PAGE 7. JOINT STATUS REPORT 

Trial Act and postpone the trials from their current dates in April of 2016, the parties have 

conferred. 

One group of defendants (“Group A”) has concluded that they are unable to suggest 

reasonable case litigation dates due to the insufficient information provided by the government to 

date and lack of adequate time to consult with clients in a meaningful way about the case. These 

defendants include those who have not yet made a first appearance in this district; who have release 

hearings pending or anticipated; or who are unable to make informed decisions about the case 

because neither the final charging instrument nor discovery has been produced or reviewed. 

Further, in light of the agreed restrictions on copying and distribution of the first expected round 

of discovery, counsel with out-of-custody clients in distant locations may not be able to review 

discovery with their clients before the next status conference. 

A second set of defendants and attorneys (“Group B”) propose the following case litigation 

and trial schedule as their best good faith effort to arrive at a reasonable trial date despite the lack 

of charging instrument or discovery provided to date, and assuming the Court overrules defense 

objections and declares the case complex: 

3/31/16 – Final Indictment 

4/14/16 – Discovery complete 

4/28/16 – Defense Round One Motions (pure legal motions, no extensive review of 

discovery needed, probably no evidentiary hearings) 

5/12/16 – Government Round One Responses 

5/19/16 – Defense Round One Replies 

6/2/16-6/6/16 – Court Hearings, Round One Motions 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 244 Filed 03/07/16 Page 7 of 10
PAGE 8. JOINT STATUS REPORT 

6/16/16 – Defense Round Two Motions (mixed legal/fact motions, some limited review of 

discovery needed, probable evidentiary hearings) 

6/30/16 – Government Round Two Responses 

7/7/16 – Defense Round Two Replies 

7/21/16-7/28/16 – Court Hearings, Round Two Motions 

8/4/16 – Defense Round Three Motions (more fact-specific and closer-to-trial motions, full 

review of discovery needed, likely evidentiary hearings) 

8/18/16 – Government Round Three Responses 

8/25/16 – Defense Round Three Replies 

9/8/16-9/15/16 – Court Hearings, Round Three Motions 

10/3/16 – Pretrial Hearing 

10/10/16 – Jury Selection Begins 

10/18/16-12/9/16 – Jury Trial 

The defendants and attorneys in Group A and B are: 

DEFENDANT ATTORNEY GROUP A GROUP B 

Ammon Bundy Mike Arnold, Lissa Casey X 

Jon Ritzheimer Terri Wood X 

Joseph O’Shaughnessy Amy Baggio X 

Ryan Payne Lisa Hay, Rich Federico X 

Ryan Bundy Andrew Bates X 

Brian Cavalier Todd Bofferding X 

Shawna Cox Tiffany Harris X 

Peter Santilli Tom Coan X 

Jason Patrick Andrew Kohlmetz X 

Duane Leo Ehmer David Audet X 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 244 Filed 03/07/16 Page 8 of 10
PAGE 9. JOINT STATUS REPORT 

DEFENDANT ATTORNEY GROUP A GROUP B 

Dylan Anderson Sam Kauffman X 

Sean Anderson Matthew McHenry X 

David Lee Fry Per Olson X 

Jeff Wayne Banta Robert Salisbury X 

Sandra Lynn Anderson Tyl Bakker X 

Kenneth Medenbach Matthew Schindler Does not agree 

to any group 

Blaine Cooper Krista Shipsey X 

Wesley Kjar James Halley X 

Corey Lequieu Ramon Pagan X 

Neil Wampler1 Lisa Maxfield 

Jason Charles Blomgren Robert Rainwater X 

Darryl William Thorn Laurie Shertz X 

Geoffrey Stanek Benjamin Andersen X 

Travis Cox Paul Hood No appearance 

yet 

Eric Lee Flores Ernest Warren Jr. No appearance 

yet 

The government’s position on the reasonable litigation dates and trial dates is as follows: 

With the two following exceptions, the government agrees with defendants’ proposed 

litigation schedule. First, it is the government’s position that it cannot commit to a time at which 

a new, superseding indictment will be returned. The government is currently analyzing evidence 

seized from the investigation and conducting follow-up investigation related to a number of 

investigative leads. If this analysis and investigation yields information that supports the 

 1

 Ms. Maxfield is expected to address Mr. Wampler’s position as to a trial date at the March 

9, 2016, status conference. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 244 Filed 03/07/16 Page 9 of 10
PAGE 10. JOINT STATUS REPORT 

presentation of additional charges to the grand jury, the government will present such material to 

the grand jury as soon as practicable. Second, it is the government’s position that the production 

of discovery will be substantially complete by May 15, 2016. 

Respectfully submitted on March 7, 2016. 

/s/ Lisa Hay 

Lisa Hay 

Federal Public Defender 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 244 Filed 03/07/16 Page 10 of 10