1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Sean C. Chapman 

Law Office of Sean C. Chapman, P.C.

100 North Stone Avenue, Suite 701

Tucson, Arizona 85701

Telephone: (520) 622-0747

Fax: (520) 628-7861

Arizona State Bar No. 012088

Attorney for Defendant 

Sean@seanchapmanlaw.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

Lonnie Ray Swartz,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CR 15-1723 TUC RCC (DTF)

MOTION FOR WITNESS LIST

It is expected that excludable delay under Title 18, United States Code, § 

3161(h)(1)(F) will occur because of this motion or an order based thereon.

The Defendant, Lonny Swartz, through undersigned counsel, Sean C. Chapman 

of THE LAW OFFICE OF SEAN C. CHAPMAN, P.C., pursuant to Rule 16 of the 

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, hereby moves for an Order compelling the 

Government to provide a list of witnesses to be called at trial and to indicate the order 

of such witnesses.

1 This motion is made for the reasons set forth below.

 

1 Pursuant to L.R.Crim. 12.1(a) and L.R.Civ. 7.2(j), undersigned counsel certifies that after 

personal consultation and sincere efforts to do so, counsel have been unable to satisfactorily 

resolve this matter.

Case 4:15-cr-01723-RCC-DTF Document 172 Filed 06/14/17 Page 1 of 5
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I. FACTS RELEVANT TO THE RESOLUTION OF THIS MOTION

Early in 2016 the parties and this Court agreed that this case should be designated 

as “complex” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii).2(Doc. 19, 24.) At 

that time, the Government had disclosed approximately 7,000 pages of documents. 

(Doc. 19.) Since then, the documentary disclosure has grown to over 11,000 pages, and 

continues to be supplemented. In the past few months, for example, the Government has 

disclosed two new expert witnesses.

The parties are diligently working to be ready for the firm trial date of October 

12, 2017. While the Government has been generally cooperative and forthcoming in 

providing disclosure thus far, there is no reciprocal disclosure agreement entered into by 

the parties and no scheduling order respecting deadlines to produce Rule 15 disclosure. 

The defense has no way of knowing what remains to be disclosed by the Government, 

what additional investigation will be necessitated by any new disclosure, or what 

additional motions will need to be resolved prior to trial based on new disclosure.

An Order based on this motion will enable defense counsel to focus on the 

witnesses that the Government intends to call at trial, rather than to cull the thousands 

 

2 The statute provides that the Court determine “[w]hether the case is so unusual or so

complex, due to the number of defendants, the nature of the prosecution, or the 

existence of novel questions of fact or law, that it is unreasonable to expect adequate 

preparation for pretrial proceedings or for the trial itself within the time limits 

established by this section.”

Case 4:15-cr-01723-RCC-DTF Document 172 Filed 06/14/17 Page 2 of 5
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

of pages of disclosure and proceed by guesswork. An Order will also promote 

efficiency and conserve judicial resources by ensuring a smooth trial with fewer breaks 

and delays.

II. LAW

Every district court is charged with effectuating the speedy and orderly 

administration of justice. United States v. W.R. Grace, 526 F.3d 499, 508 (9th Cir. 2008) 

(en banc). As the Ninth Circuit explained, this mandate authorizes the district court to 

“enter pretrial case management and discovery orders designed to ensure that the 

relevant issues to be tried are identified, that the parties have an opportunity to engage 

in appropriate discovery and that the parties are adequately and timely prepared so that 

the trial can proceed efficiently and intelligibly.” Id. at 508-09. Orders setting the 

timing for Rule 16 discovery are, therefore, well within this Court’s inherent power to 

manage its docket. Id. at 509. In addition, the Rules of Criminal Procedure expressly 

grant to the district court the ability to regulate discovery by granting any “appropriate 

relief.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 16 (d)(1).

Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires the Government to 

disclose its expert witnesses, along with a summary of the expert’s options, the bases 

and reasons for those opinions, and the witness’s qualifications. Fed.R.Crim.P. 

16(a)(1)((G). In W.R. Grace, the Ninth Circuit resolved the question of pretrial 

disclosure of non-expert witness, holding “[a]lthough Rule 16 does not expressly 

Case 4:15-cr-01723-RCC-DTF Document 172 Filed 06/14/17 Page 3 of 5
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

mandate the disclosure of non-expert witnesses, it is not inconsistent with Rule 16 and 

Rule 2 for a court to order the government to produce a list of such witnesses as a 

matter of its discretion.”

3

Id. at 511 (citations omitted.) 

Given the complexity of this case and the number of potential witnesses 

involved, requiring the Government to produce its list of witnesses well in advance of 

trial will bring the necessary focus and organization to ready the case for trial. Id. at 513 

(affirming as reasonable the court’s order requiring the government to disclose its final 

list of witnesses a year before trial was set to begin.) The Government could 

realistically call over 100 witnesses; therefore, the defense requests that the 

Government identify each witness it intends to call, and the order in which it intends to 

call them. This will ensure that the trial runs smoothly because the defense will be 

prepared to examine the witnesses as they are called. 

The defense will reciprocate by providing an in-order witness list.

III. CONCLUSION

For all the foregoing reasons, this Court should enter an Order compelling the 

Government’s to provide the requested witness list.

 

3 Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides: “These rules are to be 

interpreted to provide for the just determination of every criminal proceeding, to secure 

simplicity in procedure and fairness in administration, and to eliminate unjustifiable 

expense and delay.”

Case 4:15-cr-01723-RCC-DTF Document 172 Filed 06/14/17 Page 4 of 5
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Respectfully submitted this 12th day of June, 2017.

LAW OFFICES OF SEAN CHAPMAN, P.C.

BY: /s/ Sean Chapman

Sean Chapman

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that on June 14, 2017, caused to be electronically filed 

the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which 

sent notification to the following:

Wallace H. Kleindienst

Mary Sue Feldmeier

Wallace.Kleindienst@usdoj.gov

Mary.Sue.Feldmeier@usdoj.gov

US Attorneys Office – Tucson, AZ

405 W. Congress, Suite 4800

Tucson, AZ 85701-4050

Serena Lara

Case 4:15-cr-01723-RCC-DTF Document 172 Filed 06/14/17 Page 5 of 5