Opinion ID: 1249059
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Authority to Order Disclosure

Text: Although the government cannot be compelled to disclose its nonexpert witnesses before trial, Rule 16 establishes a different regime for expert witnesses and certain categories of documents and scientific tests. Relevant here, upon a defendant's request the government is required to disclose the expert witnesses it intends to use in its case-in-chief, as well as a summary of these experts' expected testimony and the bases and reasons for [their] opinions. [7] Fed.R.Crim.P. 16(a)(1)(G); see also 16(a)(1)(E) (documents within the government's possession, custody or control material to the defense or that the government intends to use in its case-in-chief), 16(a)(1)(F) (scientific reports). Once triggered by the defendant, these discovery obligations are reciprocal. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 16(b)(1)(A)-(C). Although Rule 16(a)(1)(G) does not specify a timeline for such disclosures, the advisory committee notes state the expectation that the parties will make their requests and disclosures in a timely fashion. Thus, unlike the disclosure of nonexpert witnesses, once the parties have triggered Rule 16(a)(1)(G)'s reciprocal disclosure requirements, the district court has the authority to regulate such disclosures under Rule 16(d)(2), which gives the court wide latitude to ensure compliance with Rule 16 discovery obligations. Because Rule 16(a)(1)(G) specifically refers to the disclosure of the bases and reasons for expert witnesses' opinions, the district court's authority also includes the power to regulate disclosure of documents upon which a party's expert witnesses will rely during its case-in-chief. Accordingly, we hold that the district court here acted within its authority in requiring the government to disclose in advance of trial a list of its intended expert witnesses and the documents upon which those expert witnesses would rely. [8]