gov response pay scanning show_temp[1]

8/7/2019 Gov Response Pay Scanning Show_temp[1]

1/3

1

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

DANIEL BOGDENUnited States AttorneyMICHAEL CHU

Assistant U.S. Attorney333 Las Vegas Blvd. S, Ste 5000Las Vegas, NV 89101

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v.

Ginger Gutierrez, James Kinney, Brian

Dvorak, Helen Bagley and Jeff Mitchell

Defendants.

Response to Defendants

Motion For theGovernment to Pay for Scanning

The United States of America, by and through the undersigned attorneys, responds to the

Motion of defendants Ginger Gutierrez, James Kinney, Brian Dvorak, Jeff Mitchell and Helen Bagley

to have the United States pay for scanning (Docket No. 131).

Discussion

Previously, as defendants have noted, the United States has produced about 300,000 pages

which it will rely upon for its case in chief. Because these documents were deemed significant, they

were scanned, bates numbered and produced.

At issue is a different collection of documents: about 200 boxes of documents that the

Securities & Exchange Commission in Los Angeles has kept in cold storage. The United States doe

not have possession of these documents. It did not gather them. It has not seen these documents, n

at this time intends does it intend to rely upon them for its case in chief. Their significance is, at bes

uncertain.

Case 2:09-cr-00132-RLH -RJJ Document 135 Filed 02/26/11 Page 1 of 3


2/3

2

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

That said, out of an abundance of caution, the United States notified defendants of the

existence of these documents and made them available for defendants to inspect and to copy or

photograph under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16. Until defendants filed their Motion, the

plan was for the parties to drive to Los Angeles and review the documents on February 28, 2011.

However, defendants apparently obtained one bid of in excess of $100,000, based on an

assumption that 200 boxes would be packed full with 2500 pages. Upon hearing this, the CJA Pane

requested that defendants file their Motion to have the United States pay for scanning all documents.

It is unclear, however, if there was more than one bid, or if it was opened up to a bid competition that

would lower prices. What is clear is that this bid was obtained without the documents having first

been looked at.

It is understandable that the CJA Panel is concerned about costs. Even in the best of times,

$100,000 is a large sum. But these are not the best of times; as has been widely reported, the entire

United States government is working without a budget in place. In fact, the government as a whole

working off of a continuing resolution until March 4, 2011. Even if the continuing resolution is

extended, our nations finances remain in a precarious state. Naturally, this budget situation also

affects the U.S. Attorneys Office. It is imperative that we all economize.

Before the parties spend in excess of $100,000.00 in taxpayer money, the United States

suggests that (1) this motion be dismissed without prejudice for defendants to later re-file; (2) the

parties first inspect the documents to get a better sense of what lies ahead; and (3) the parties obtain

multiple, competing bids. To aid all parties in making this determination, the United States has

obtained an index from the Securities & Exchange Commission, and provided it to defendants; this

may also help the parties determine what documents may be relevant, and what are clearly not.



3/3

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

Conclusion

For these reasons, the United States respectfully requests that defendants motion be denied

without prejudice to re-filing once the parties have first inspected the documents, and have obtained

multiple, competing bids.

Respectfully submitted February 26, 2011.

DANIEL BOGDENUnited States Attorney

/s/

__________________________Michael ChuAssistant United States Attorney


gov response pay scanning show_temp[1]

Documents