The opinion of the court was delivered by: ALESIA
Before the court are the pretrial motions of defendant Guido Cicero Pelini, considered in turn:
I. MOTION RESERVING THE RIGHT TO FILE ADDITIONAL MOTIONS
Said motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. If defendant wishes to file additional motions he must present a motion to file additional motions alleging good cause for excusing the waiver. Local Criminal Rule 12(f); United States v. Messino, 855 F. Supp. 955, 971 (N.D. Ill. 1994).
II. MOTION TO ADOPT CO-DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS
Said motion is DENIED pursuant to this court's practice. See United States v. Messino, 855 F. Supp. 955, 971 (N.D. Ill. 1994); United States v. Sims, 808 F. Supp. 596, 602 (N.D. Ill. 1992).
III. MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE OF GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS
Defendant's motion is entirely conclusory. As the government notes, all authority supporting the relief requested requires a particular showing by defendant. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(3)(C)(ii) provides for disclosure "when permitted by a court at the request of the defendant, upon a showing that grounds may exist for a motion to dismiss the indictment because of matters occurring before the grand jury." The Supreme Court has in turn required a showing of "particularized need." United States v. Sells Engineering, Inc., 463 U.S. 418, 443, 103 S. Ct. 3133, 3148, 77 L. Ed. 2d 743 (1983).
Defendant has made no attempt to make any such showing. Accordingly, in this regard, the motion is DENIED in part.
To the extent the motion sought Grand Jury identification, the motion is DENIED AS MOOT, because the government has made said disclosure.
IV. MOTION TO REQUIRE THE GOVERNMENT TO FURNISH ALL GUIDELINE INFORMATION ABOUT DEFENDANT PELINI
Defendant provides no basis in any rule, statute or case for his request. The government, on the other hand, has persuasive authority against such a request. The court is persuaded by the reasoning of Magistrate Judge Boyce in United States v. Wagner, 149 F.R.D. 217 (D. Utah 1993), where the magistrate judge could find no constitutional, statutory or rule-based authority for such a request. See also United States v. Barrett, 890 F.2d 855, 865 (6th Cir. 1989).
V. MOTION TO PRESERVE HANDWRITTEN NOTES OF ...