The opinion of the court was delivered by: Samuel Der-Yeghiayan United States District Court Judge
SAMUEL DER-YEGHIAYAN, District Judge
This matter is before the court on Defendant Freddie Johnson's ("Johnson"), Defendant Marilyn Rainey's ("Rainey"), Defendant Willie Collins' ("Collins"), Defendant Qiana Bishop-Oyedepo's ("Bishop-Oyedepo") and Defendant Ernest Preston's ("Preston") pretrial motions. This matter is also before the court on the Government's motion to dismiss Counts 13-16 of the Indictment. For the reasons stated below, we grant in part and deny in part the pretrial motions. We also grant the Government's motion to dismiss Counts 13-16 of the Indictment.
On October 22, 2008, the Government filed a voluntary motion to dismiss Counts 13-16 of the Indictment. We now grant the Government's voluntary motion and dismiss Counts 13-16 of the Indictment. Also on October 22, 2008, Preston filed a motion to dismiss Count 15 of the Indictment. Since we have granted the Government's motion to dismiss Count 15 of the Indictment, Preston's motion is denied as moot.
II. Motions For Early Return of Trial Subpoenas
Johnson, Collins, and Bishop-Oyedepo have each filed separate motions seeking early return of trial subpoenas pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c)(1). The Government has indicated that it has no opposition to these motions. The Government further states that it will adhere to all disclosure requirements contained in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure with respect to all intended Government witnesses. Therefore, we grant the motions for the early return of trial subpoenas pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c)(1). The early return will apply to the Government's subpoenas as well.
III. Brady and Giglio Motions
Johnson, Rainey, and Collins have each filed motions seeking the production of exculpatory and impeaching evidence as is required by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). The Government has indicated that it has provided Defendants with all such materials as is presently required under Brady and Giglio and will continue to adhere to these requirements. Therefore, we deny these motions as moot.
IV. Motions to Require Disclosure of Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) Evidence
Johnson, Rainey, and Collins have each filed motions seeking to require the Government to provide reasonable notice of its intention to present evidence at trial of prior acts under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) ("Rule 404(b)"). Johnson and Collins request notice of Rule 404(b) evidence thirty days prior to trial and Rainey requests notice of Rule 404(b) evidence sixty days prior to trial. The Government has indicated that it is willing to provide notice of its intent to introduce Rule 404(b) evidence four weeks prior to trial. We agree with the Government that four weeks prior to trial is a reasonable deadline for providing Defendants with notice of any intention to introduce Rule 404(b) evidence. We also agree with the Government that, under Rule 404(b), the Government is only required to provide information concerning the "general nature" of Rule 404(b) evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). Therefore, we deny Johnson's, Rainey's, and Collins' motions relating to the time of disclosure of Rule 404(b) evidence.
V. Motions Relating to Expert Disclosure
Collins and Preston have each filed motions to compel the Government to produce a written summary of any expert testimony. The Government submits that it has not yet retained the services of any expert witness and that it will comply with all requirements under the Federal Rules of Evidence for the disclosure of expert testimony. Specifically, the Government states that it will provide all Defendants with its expert disclosures no later than four weeks prior to trial. We agree with the Government that four weeks is ...