From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Rigmaiden

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Oct 24, 2012
No. CR08-0814-01-PHX-DGC (D. Ariz. Oct. 24, 2012)

Opinion

No. CR08-0814-01-PHX-DGC

10-24-2012

United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Daniel David Rigmaiden (1), Defendant.


ORDER

1. Defendant Daniel Rigmaiden has filed a motion for reconsideration (Doc. 914) of the Court's order granting the government 10 additional days to respond to Defendant's motion for additional discovery (Doc. 899). The motion for reconsideration asks the Court to review Defendant's response to the motion for extension (Doc. 902) and grant the relief requested in it. The Court has reviewed Defendant's response to the motion for extension (Doc. 902). The intemperate response expresses great exasperation with the government, announces that Defendant is through waiting, asks the Court to dismiss this case with prejudice, or alternatively asks the Court to grant the additional discovery Defendant seeks in the motion to which the government is responding or suppress all digital evidence in this case.

The motion for reconsideration is denied. Defendant has filed hundreds of pages of motions in the last year, including four more motions in the last 10 days alone (Docs. 897, 901, 914, 908). The government has responded to Defendant's many motions and, in the Court's view, has sought to cooperate fairly in Defendant's vigorous pro se defense of this case. Granting the government a 10-day extension to respond to Defendant's motion for additional discovery was not unreasonable, and the Court sees no basis whatsoever for granting the extraordinary relief sought in Defendant's response to the motion for the 10-day extension.

2. Defendant has also filed a motion for leave to file yet another discovery motion. Doc. 908. The motion notes that the Court previously directed Defendant not to file further discovery motions (Doc. 723), but asks permission to file a motion to compel the government to again disclose a video file (previously disclosed to the defense but lost) that would allow Defendant to obtain a still image in support of a fact the government likely does not dispute - that it had an agent leave a menu on Defendant's door in June of 2008. The motion notes that the government recently provided him with a second copy of the video file, but Defendant could not open it. Defendant asks the Court to order the government to follow his instructions in creating the video file.

The motion for leave to file another discovery motions is denied. Defendant can make the argument regarding the government's ability to serve him as fully without the video as he can with it. If the government denied that an agent placed a Chinese food menu on his door in June of 2008, Defendant can renew his request for a copy of the video. Defendant shall not file further discovery motions.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 914) and motion for leave to file a discovery motion (Doc. 908) are denied.

__________________

David G. Campbell

United States District Judge
cc: Rigmaiden


Summaries of

United States v. Rigmaiden

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Oct 24, 2012
No. CR08-0814-01-PHX-DGC (D. Ariz. Oct. 24, 2012)
Case details for

United States v. Rigmaiden

Case Details

Full title:United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Daniel David Rigmaiden (1)…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Date published: Oct 24, 2012

Citations

No. CR08-0814-01-PHX-DGC (D. Ariz. Oct. 24, 2012)