Free Response in Opposition - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cr-03041-LAB

Document 12

Filed 12/31/2007

Page 1 of 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 27 28

KAREN P. HEWITT United States Attorney PETER KO California Bar No. 191994 Assistant United States Attorney Federal Office Building 880 Front Street, Room 6293 San Diego, California 92101-8893 Tel.: (619) 557-6618 Fax: (619) 557-3445 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for United States of America UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. JOE VANG, Defendant ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 07CR3041-LAB DATE: TIME: Jan. 7, 2008 2:00 pm

GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO VANG'S MOTIONS: 1) TO COMPEL DISCOVERY; AND 2) TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE FURTHER MOTIONS

The United States of America, by its counsel, responds as follows to Vang's motions. Vang moves for discovery. We have complied with, and will continue to comply with, our discovery obligations under Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 and 26.2, the Jencks Act (18 U.S.C. § 3500), and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and its progeny. At this time, we are not aware of any specific discovery disputes. As a legal matter, we oppose Vang's motion to the extent it seeks discovery beyond the boundaries of the authorities above or any other authority. As a practical matter, however, we are aware of the value of open discovery and already have disclosed, and will continue to disclose, more than required by law. In addition, we recognize our obligations under Brady and its progeny take precedence and may at times require us to disclose evidence, documents, or objects not otherwise discoverable.

Case 3:07-cr-03041-LAB

Document 12

Filed 12/31/2007

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Vang's motion for leave to file further motions should be denied without prejudice to renewing it if or when he identifies the specific motions he seeks to file. Without knowing the specific motion(s), the court cannot determine if good cause exists for not filing the motion at this time or earlier. In addition, because Vang has not actually sought to file any additional motions­i.e., because there is no actual controversy about whether the court should allow the filing of a motion­he effectively seeks an advisory opinion, which federal courts are constitutionally prohibited from issuing. United States v. Conklin, 9 F.3d 1377, 1386 (9th Cir. 1993). Respectfully submitted, KAREN P. HEWITT United States Attorney s/ Peter Ko

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
07CR3041-LAB

DATED: Dec. 31, 2007

PETER KO Assistant U.S. Attorney Attorneys for United States of America Email: [email protected]

Case 3:07-cr-03041-LAB

Document 12

Filed 12/31/2007

Page 3 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 8 v. 9 JOE VANG, 10 Defendant 11 12 13 IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED THAT: 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
07CR3041-LAB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) No. 07CR3041-LAB ) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ) ) ) ) ) ) )

I, Peter Ko, am a citizen of the United States and am at least eighteen years of age. My business address is 880 Front Street, Room 6293, San Diego, California 92101-8893. I am not a party to the above-entitled action. I have caused service of the attached Response and Opposition on the following parties by electronically filing the foregoing with the Clerk of the District Court using its ECF System, which electronically notifies them. Debra A. DiIorio (counsel for Vang) I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on Dec. 31, 2007 s/Peter Ko PETER KO