Opinion
S2 01 Crim. 0420 (LAK)
September 6, 2002
ORDER
By letter dated August 13 (and received September 5), 2002, defendant's counsel purports to move for a bill of particulars and certain other discovery.
The letter contains no indication that counsel complied with Local Crim. R. 16.1. The motion therefore is denied. See, e.g., United States v. Coleman Commercial Carriers, Inc., No. S1 01 Crim. 1042 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2002); United States v. Ming, No. 02 Crim. 0596 (LAK), 2002 WL 1949227, *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2002); United States v. Roberts, No. 01 Crim. 0410 (RWS), 2001 WL 1602213, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2001); United States v. Jailall, No. 01 Crim. 0069 (RWS), 2000 WL 1368055, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2000); United States v. Guevara, No. 99 Crim. 445 (AGS), 1999 WL 639720, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 1999); United States v. Ahmad, 992 F. Supp. 682, 684-85 (S.D.N.Y. 1998).
Counsel attention is drawn also to the fact that this sort of boilerplate application — which among other things seeks particulars as to "who manufactured" a Glock pistol (obviously Glock) and is addressed to "United Hon. Lewis A. Kaplan" — is not favored.
SO ORDERED.