Opinion ID: 183473
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Denial of Motion for Disclosure of CI

Text: A district court’s denial of a motion as untimely is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Snipes, 611 F.3d 855, 864 (11th Cir. 2010). The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that a district court may set a deadline for the filing of all pretrial motions and requests. Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(c). Any motions not filed by the deadline are considered to be waived. Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(e). The waiver rule applies even if the district court made an alternative ruling on the merits of the motion. United States v. Milian-Rodriguez, 828 F.2d 679, 683-84 (11th Cir. 1987). The district court may grant relief from the waiver if the party is able to show good cause for the late filing. Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(e). In this case, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the defendants’ motion for disclosure of the CI was untimely. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(e). The district court’s June 3, 2009, scheduling order set a deadline of 28 days for the filing of all motions. The defendants’ motion for disclosure was not filed until July 23, 2009, three weeks after the deadline had run and less than one week before trial. Furthermore, the defendants did not offer good cause to excuse the late filing. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(e). Cortes’s counsel explained that the motion was 29 late because the government had only recently disclosed that the CI had given gas money to Cortes. As the district court observed, however, the defendants had known about the CI’s involvement “since day one.” If the defendants believed that information concerning the CI was relevant to their defense, they should have filed the motion for disclosure at an earlier date. Because the district court properly denied the motion for disclosure as untimely, we need not address the district court’s alternative conclusion that the motion failed on the merits.