Opinion ID: 344247
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Compliance with Discovery Orders.

Text: 47 On October 17, 1975, the United States Magistrate entered an order which provided in part as follows: 48 It is ordered that at the request of the defendant, Richard W. Rogers, and with the consent of the Government, the Government shall produce within ten (10) days for all defendants to inspect and copy all records; laboratory reports conducted herein; and the auto thefts report filed by the defendant Rogers. (emphasis supplied). 49 On January 9, 1976, appellant filed a motion to dismiss for the alleged failure of the Government to comply with the order of October 17, 1975. A hearing was held on January 13, 1976, and relief denied. 50 The Court found that at no time prior to January 9, 1976, did the appellant or his counsel call or visit the United States Attorney's office to inspect or copy the exhibits. The Court found that there are only a few exhibits to be produced, and the exhibits are such that they can easily be reviewed prior to trial. The Court concluded that since all the exhibits had been or would be provided to defendants on the date of the hearing and no prejudice to the defendants had been shown, the case should not be dismissed. 51 We find nothing to compel the conclusion that the Government failed to abide the order. Armed with it, counsel for the appellant could have inspected and copied the records mentioned in it. The Government shows, without dispute, that it was in a position to, and was obediently ready to, assemble all such documents for such inspection, and copying. No one asked Government counsel to do so. No one came to inspect; no one came to copy. This is no criticism of appellant's counsel. The order, to appellant's benefit had, after all, been obtained on behalf of another defendant, Rogers. Appellant's counsel no doubt realized that there are only a few exhibits . . . such that they can easily be reviewed prior to trial. Otherwise, it would appear that they just tucked the order away in the file; studiously avoided asking for its fruits; and prepared a motion to dismiss. 52 While it is doubtful, therefore, that the order of October 17, 1975 was violated, it has long been settled that the appropriate relief for the violation of discovery rules lies within the sound discretion of the District Court. Gevinson v. United States, 358 F.2d 761, 766 (5th Cir. 1966); United States v. Saitta, 443 F.2d 830 (5th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 938, 92 S.Ct. 269, 30 L.Ed.2d 250 (1971). Likewise, an error in administering the discovery rules is not reversible absent a showing that the error was prejudicial to the substantial rights of the defendant. United States v. Saitta, supra at 831. 53 Appellant has shown neither prejudice to his defense nor an abuse of discretion in the denial of his motion to dismiss. The motion was properly denied. 54