The opinion of the court was delivered by: BUA
NICHOLAS J. BUA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Defendant Villareal presents this court with a far-flung discovery motion. Indeed, the court suspects that defendant has forgotten what court he addresses as his motion makes reference to the "State" and the Illinois Supreme Court Rules. Defendant is in federal court. To the extent that his discovery requests embrace matters that should be disclosed pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215, 83 S. Ct. 1194 (1963), Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 31 L. Ed. 2d 104, 92 S. Ct. 763 (1972) and Fed. Rule Crim. P. 16, the government is directed to provide this information. However, the government is not obligated to comply with those portions of defendant's requests which exceed the requirements of Rule 16 or these cases.
In his first request, Villareal asks for a bill of particulars. A bill of particulars is designed to inform a defendant of the elements of the charges against him in order that he may prepare for trial. United States v. Kendall, 665 F.2d 126, 134 (7th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1021, 72 L. Ed. 2d 140, 102 S. Ct. 1719 (1982). If the indictment or subsequent discovery provides such information, a bill of particulars may be unnecessary. United States v. Marquez, 686 F. Supp. 1354, 1361 (N.D. Ill. 1988). Villareal is charged with counts of conspiracy and narcotics distribution. The indictment brought against him details the dates, the locations, and the physical descriptions of the places connected with the narcotics transaction. The indictment also specifies the amount and value of the narcotics involved in the transaction. The information in the indictment is supplemented by discovery materials, including surveillance reports, reports of undercover conversations and audio and video tapes of those conversations, that the government has already provided. In light of the specific details provided by the indictment and discovery materials, the court finds no need for a bill of particulars.
In requests two, three, thirteen and nineteen, defendant calls for lists of witnesses. The government is under no obligation to provide a defendant with a list of potential government witnesses in non-capital cases. United States v. Napue, 834 F.2d 1311, 1317 (7th Cir. 1987). However, to the extent that defendant's requests for witnesses seek disclosure of the identities of persons who can provide information favorable to the accused which is material to guilt, the government, pursuant to Brady, must furnish the defendant with the identities of these persons.
III. Informers' Identities
The exception to the rule that the identities of persons involved in an investigation be disclosed is the identity of informers. Villareal asks for such disclosure in request twenty. Disclosure of informers' identities involves balancing a defendant's need to prepare an effective defense against law enforcement's and the public's need to protect the identity of informants. Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 59-62, 1 L. Ed. 2d 639, 77 S. Ct. 623 (1957). For that reason, "the defendant must demonstrate a genuine need for the informant's identity before the court requires disclosure." United States v. Padilla, 744 F. Supp. 1425, 1426 (N.D. Ill. 1990). Villareal provides no support for the conclusion that he has a genuine need for informers' identities. In any event, should informants be called to testify, he will be made aware of their identities at trial. Request twenty is denied.
IV. Statements of Defendant and Co-defendants
Statements by the defendant and any co-defendants are the subject of request four. Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(A), the government is required to disclose the content of statements made by the accused. The government indicates that Villareal has already been provided with his statements. The government also notes that Villareal has been supplied with audio and video tapes that contain statements of his codefendant. Therefore, the government is only directed to produce any remaining statements in its possession which fall under the auspices of Brady.
V. Grand Jury Transcripts
In request five, Villareal seeks Grand Jury Minutes. Since Villareal did not testify before the grand jury, that portion of his request which seeks the transcript of his testimony is rendered moot. The government need not provide grand jury transcripts of government witnesses until trial. See 18 U.S.C. § 3500. The ...