United States v. Meek

Decision Date19 March 2021
Docket NumberNo. 1:19-cr-00378-JMS-MJD,1:19-cr-00378-JMS-MJD
PartiesUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM ERIC MEEK and BOBBY LEE PEAVLER, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana

- 01

- 02

ORDER

In this criminal case, Defendants William Meek and Bobby Peavler are charged with several fraud-related crimes stemming from their time as executives for a trucking company called Celadon Group, Inc. [Filing No. 106-1.] Pending before the Court are Mr. Peavler's Motion for an Order Relating to Brady v. Maryland, [Filing No. 113], and Mr. Meek's Motion to Compel Identification of Exculpatory Evidence and for Related Relief and Joinder of Motion of Bobby Peavler, [Filing No. 115]. The Court will first address the Government's obligations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and then discuss Defendants' Motions.

I.

DUE PROCESS PROTECTIONS ACT

The Due Process Protections Act of 2020 (the "DPPA") amends Rule 5(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and provides:

In all criminal proceedings, on the first scheduled court date when both prosecutor and defense counsel are present, the judge shall issue an oral and written order to prosecution and defense counsel that confirms the disclosure obligation of the prosecutor under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and its progeny, and the possible consequences of violating such order under applicable law. Each judicial council in which a district court is located shall promulgate a model order for [this] purpose ... that the court may use as it determines is appropriate.

Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(f).

This case was filed prior to the enactment of the DPPA, but pursuant to the DPPA, the Court reminds the Government of its obligations under Brady. Brady prohibits "the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused" because doing so is a violation of due process when the suppressed evidence is "material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution." 373 U.S. at 87.

Accordingly, the Court hereby notifies, reminds, and admonishes counsel of the Government's obligation to disclose favorable evidence to Defendants under Brady and its progeny, and ORDERS it to do so. Favorable evidence under Brady need have only some weight and includes both exculpatory and impeaching evidence. Failure to produce such evidence in a timely manner may result in sanctions, including, but not limited to, adverse jury instructions, dismissal of charges, and contempt proceedings.

II.

DISCOVERY MOTIONS

As noted above, both Defendants have filed discovery motions that are now pending before the Court. Mr. Peavler requests "an order requiring the government to (i) conduct a good faith search for exculpatory material under Brady v. Maryland, (ii) identify the Brady material of which it is aware, and (iii) identify whether it is withholding any Brady material for any reason." [Filing No. 113 at 1.] In his Motion, Mr. Meek requests "an order from this Court directing the Government to (a) specifically identify to the defense any exculpatory information, whether or not such information has already been produced to the defense; and (b) produce communications between the Government and the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), on the one hand, and Celadon or Danny Williams [an alleged co-conspirator], on the other." [Filing No. 115 at 1.] In addition, Mr. Meek joins in Mr. Peavler's Motion, [Filing No. 113], and states that "[f]airness demands that any relief granted to Mr. Peavler through his motion also be granted to Mr. Meek."[Filing No. 115 at 3.] The Government responds to Mr. Peavler's Motion and Mr. Meek's Motion in a consolidated response. [Filing No. 120.] In the interest of clarity, the Court will discuss Defendants' general Brady-related arguments together, and then discuss each Defendant's arguments related to specific material.

A. Motions for all Brady Materials

Mr. Peavler argues that his motion should be granted for three reasons. First, Mr. Peavler argues that "an order from the Court would provide an important safeguard against Brady violations that can occur in large document cases where exculpatory material can hide in plain sight." [Filing No. 114 at 15.] He argues that in cases like this one—where the defendant is confronted with millions of pages of documents, no contemporaneous civil lawsuits, limited resources, and no corporate assistance—courts have ordered the Government to conduct a reasonable search for Brady material and identify that Brady material to the defendant. [Filing No. 114 at 15-18 (citing United States v. Saffarinia, 424 F. Supp. 3d 46, 85 (D.D.C. 2020)).] Second, Mr. Peavler argues that the Government has consistently and erroneously "claimed that it was unaware of any material that qualifies as exculpatory Brady material," and such erroneous claims could "be made only if the government has failed to undertake any good faith effort to look for Brady material." [Filing No. 114 at 5; Filing No. 114 at 11.] In addition, Mr. Peavler argues that the Government inaccurately documented statements purportedly made by Mr. Peavler during a proffer interview with the Government. [Filing No. 114 at 13.] Mr. Peavler contends that these errors, and the Government's unwillingness to rectify them, raise further concerns that the Government "has not adequately searched for or considered the existence of Brady material," and suggest that a court order is required to secure the Government's compliance with its obligations. [Filing No. 114 at 20 (citing United States v. Brissette, 2020 WL 708034, at *9 (D. Mass. Feb. 12,2020)).] Third, Mr. Peavler argues that "an order will protect the defendants from the harmful consequences that can occur following a Brady violation, which is particularly important when considering the resources necessary to complete the four-to-six week trial likely to occur in this case." [Filing No. 114 at 15.] Mr. Peavler maintains that requiring the Government to undertake a good faith search for Brady material provides a safeguard against the risk that Mr. Peavler could be wrongfully convicted or that a retrial would be necessary because the Government improperly withheld Brady material. [Filing No. 114 at 21-22 (citing United States v. Paulus, 952 F.3d 717, 728 (6th Cir. 2020) (the defendant—who is also represented by Mr. Peavler's counsel—was convicted after six-week jury trial, but the conviction was overturned because the Government withheld Brady material)).] Mr. Peavler concludes that the requested order is necessary because "Brady violations do not require bad faith on the part of the prosecutors," and "it can be too easy even for the most conscientious prosecutors to violate Brady, particularly in a high-volume document case like this one." [Filing No. 114 at 24-25.]

Mr. Meek raises many of the same arguments as Mr. Peavler, and he also argues that "[u]nder Brady and [Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure] 16, the Government is obligated to identify to Mr. Meek any exculpatory information of which it is aware," and that the Government has failed to do so. [Filing No. 116 at 13.] Mr. Meek states that he has asked the Government whether it considers certain categories of information to be exculpatory, but the Government has not responded. [Filing No. 116 at 14-15.] He argues that he "cannot reasonably evaluate the Government's approach to identifying Brady material when the Government refuses to explain what types of information it would consider exculpatory." [Filing No. 116 at 15.] In addition, he argues that "it is not enough that the Government has produced millions of pages of documents";rather, "the Government must specifically identify them for Mr. Meek." [Filing No. 116 at 16 (citing United States v. Hsia, 24 F. Supp. 2d 14, 29-30 (D.D.C. 1998)).]

In response to Defendants' Motions, the Government argues that it "has produced discovery that is searchable and accessible to the defendants the same way it is searchable and accessible to the government." [Filing No. 120 at 1.] According to the Government, it has erred on the side of disclosure, not on the side of suppression, and it has conducted discovery in good faith. [Filing No. 120 at 9; Filing No. 120 at 14-15.] The Government argues that Brady does not require the Government to "search for and specifically identify potentially exculpatory evidence within discovery already produced to Defendants," and contends that "every court of appeals to have considered" requests like those of Defendants "has rejected them." [Filing No. 120 at 8-11 (citing United States v. Gray, 648 F.3d 562, 567 (7th Cir. 2011); United States v. Yi, 2020 WL 496159 (4th Cir. Jan. 30, 2020); Rhoades v. Henry, 638 F.3d 1027, 1039 (9th Cir. 2011); United States v. Warshak, 631 F.3d 266, 297 (6th Cir. 2010); United States v. Skilling, 554 F.3d 529, 576 (5th Cir. 2009), vacated in part on other grounds, 561 U.S. 358 (2010); United States v. Pelullo, 399 F.3d 197, 212 (3d Cir. 2005)).] Moreover, the Government contends that the cases cited by Defendants are distinguishable. [Filing No. 120 at 12.] According to the Government, in Blankenship, Salyer, and Hsia, the discovery was produced to the defendants "in a less user-friendly format than here." [Filing No. 120 at 13.] The Government emphasizes that in this case, unlike in Blankenship, Salyer, and Hsia, it took additional steps to assist Defendants in managing the materials, such as producing the material in an electronic and searchable format with indices. [Filing No. 120 at 13.] The Government argues that Saffarinia is distinguishable because unlike the defendants in Saffarinia, Defendants here were executives of a publicly traded corporation and are represented by talented counsel from large, well-respected firms who are not handling the case pro bono.[Filing No. 120 at 14.] And, unlike in Saffarinia, the Government maintains that "time constraints" are not an issue, as Defendan...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT