OPINION and ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: granting in part and denying in part Defendant's [129] Motion for Extension of Time to File Pretrial Motions Related to Discovery and Subpoenas. Motions to compel due November 27, 2023; oppositions due December 11, 2023; replies due December 18, 2023. Rule 17(c) motions due December 13, 2023; oppositions due December 27, 2023; replies due January 3, 2024. See Opinion and Order for details. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 11/7/2023. (zjd)
Page 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Vv.
Criminal Action No. 23-257 (TSC)
DONALD J. TRUMP,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
The court previously ordered that motions to compel and motions for Rule 17(c)
subpoenas would be due on November 9, 2023. See Opinion and Order, ECF No. 82. Defendant
now seeks to extend those deadlines. Motion for Extension of Time to File Pretrial Motions
Related to Discovery and Subpoenas, ECF No. 129 (“Motion”). Specifically, Defendant requests
(1) that motions for Rule 17(c) subpoenas be due February 9, 2024; and (2) that motions to
compel be due on a rolling basis, within ten days of the parties meeting and conferring with
respect to discovery requests as they arise, based on “discovery the prosecution has not yet
produced, or which President Trump has not currently reviewed.” Motion at 1. “At any time
before trial, the court may extend or reset the deadline for pretrial motions.” Fed. R. Crim. P.
12(c)(2). The court’s discretion to do so is broad. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 12 advisory committee’s
note to 2014 amendment; cf Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1, 11 (1983). The court will GRANT in
part and DENY in part the Motion.
Defendant offers several arguments in support of his Motion. First, he argues that the
government’s discovery production is not well organized, citing the fact that the emails therein
are not compiled with their attachments and replies. Motion at 3-4. Second, he argues that the
discovery is voluminous and continues to be provided on a rolling basis, making it difficult if not
Page 1 of 4Page 2 impossible to raise motions before the current deadline. Jd. at 4-5. And third, he asserts that
allowing later Rule 17(c) subpoenas will be more efficient than seeking the same documents
during trial. /d. at 5-6. Defendant also repeats his view that additional time 1s needed to
preserve his rights to due process and effective assistance of counsel. Jd. at 6—7.
Most of those arguments are unpersuasive. First, the government points out that the sole
organizational defect cited by the defense was actually a best practice—rather than compiling the
email materials themselves, the government provided those materials in a format that would
easily allow the defense to compile them in their preferred manner, see Opp’n to Motion, ECF
No. 137, at 4—a point to which the defense does not respond, see Reply in Support of Motion,
ECF No. 144. Second, the court has already considered the volume of discovery materials
multiple times in this case and concluded that the schedule it set would be appropriate given, for
example, the early production of organized discovery, the quantity of materials that were
duplicative or to which the defense already had access, and Defendant’s resources in reviewing
those materials. See, e.g., Tr. of Aug. 28, 2023, Status H’rg, ECF No. 38, at 9-24, 28-31. And
in the interests of justice, the court must weigh—as it has—any requests for additional time to
review those materials “against the disadvantages of backloading the pretrial schedule.” Op. and
Order, ECF No. 82, at 5.
Defendant’s requested deadline of February 9, 2024 for motions for Rule 17(c)
subpoenas illustrates the problems inherent in additional delay. On that schedule, those motions
would not be ripe until March 1, 2024, three days before the trial is scheduled to begin—after
which the court would have to rule, the subpoenas (if any) would have to issue, the materials
would have to be produced, and Defendant would have to review them, all of which could take
considerable time, which would frustrate Rule 17(c)’s purpose “to expedite the trial by providing
Page 2 of 4Page 3 a time and place before trial for the inspection of the subpoenaed materials.” Bowman Dairy Co.
v. United States, 341 U.S. 214, 220 (1951) (citation omitted). That said, the court will permit
one more partial extension of the deadline for motions for Rule 17(c) subpoenas of about a
month. That will still allow those motions to be briefed and decided, and any subpoenaed
materials to be produced and reviewed before the scheduled trial.
With respect to motions to compel, the court will permit a deadline extension of about
two weeks. As Defendant requests, this will permit the parties to further confer regarding any
outstanding discovery requests, and will allow him time to file motions with respect to any
unresolved disputes. See Motion at 1-3. After that deadline, Defendant may seek leave to file
any additional motions for good cause—for instance, if the motions are related to discovery
produced by the government following that deadline. That will preserve Defendant’s right to
raise motions with respect to all government discovery. See id. at 5.
Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Pretrial Motions Related
to Discovery and Subpoenas, ECF No. 129, is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
It is hereby ORDERED that the deadlines set forth in the court’s Pretrial Order, ECF No. 39, and
the court’s Opinion and Order, ECF No. 82, are AMENDED as follows:
Motions to compel shall be filed by November 27, 2023; any oppositions to those
motions shall be filed by December 11, 2023; and any replies in support of those
motions shall be filed by December 18, 2023.
Motions for Rule 17(c) subpoenas shall be filed by December 13, 2023; any
oppositions to those motions shall be filed by December 27, 2023; and any replies
in support of those motions shall be filed by January 3, 2024.
Page 3 of 4Page 4 Following these deadlines, Defendant may request leave to late-file a motion for good cause, and
the court will consider that request.
Date: November 7,
TANYA S. CHUTKAN
United States District Judge
Page 4 of
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 146 Filed 11/07/23 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Vv.
Criminal Action No. 23-257 (TSC)
DONALD J. TRUMP,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
The court previously ordered that motions to compel and motions for Rule 17(c)
subpoenas would be due on November 9, 2023. See Opinion and Order, ECF No. 82. Defendant
now seeks to extend those deadlines. Motion for Extension of Time to File Pretrial Motions
Related to Discovery and Subpoenas, ECF No. 129 (“Motion”). Specifically, Defendant requests
(1) that motions for Rule 17(c) subpoenas be due February 9, 2024; and (2) that motions to
compel be due on a rolling basis, within ten days of the parties meeting and conferring with
respect to discovery requests as they arise, based on “discovery the prosecution has not yet
produced, or which President Trump has not currently reviewed.” Motion at 1. “At any time
before trial, the court may extend or reset the deadline for pretrial motions.” Fed. R. Crim. P.
12(c)(2). The court’s discretion to do so is broad. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 12 advisory committee’s
note to 2014 amendment; cf Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1, 11 (1983). The court will GRANT in
part and DENY in part the Motion.
Defendant offers several arguments in support of his Motion. First, he argues that the
government’s discovery production is not well organized, citing the fact that the emails therein
are not compiled with their attachments and replies. Motion at 3-4. Second, he argues that the
discovery is voluminous and continues to be provided on a rolling basis, making it difficult if not
Page 1 of 4
PDF Page 3
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 146 Filed 11/07/23 Page 2 of 4
impossible to raise motions before the current deadline. Jd. at 4-5. And third, he asserts that
allowing later Rule 17(c) subpoenas will be more efficient than seeking the same documents
during trial. /d. at 5-6. Defendant also repeats his view that additional time 1s needed to
preserve his rights to due process and effective assistance of counsel. Jd. at 6—7.
Most of those arguments are unpersuasive. First, the government points out that the sole
organizational defect cited by the defense was actually a best practice—rather than compiling the
email materials themselves, the government provided those materials in a format that would
easily allow the defense to compile them in their preferred manner, see Opp’n to Motion, ECF
No. 137, at 4—a point to which the defense does not respond, see Reply in Support of Motion,
ECF No. 144. Second, the court has already considered the volume of discovery materials
multiple times in this case and concluded that the schedule it set would be appropriate given, for
example, the early production of organized discovery, the quantity of materials that were
duplicative or to which the defense already had access, and Defendant’s resources in reviewing
those materials. See, e.g., Tr. of Aug. 28, 2023, Status H’rg, ECF No. 38, at 9-24, 28-31. And
in the interests of justice, the court must weigh—as it has—any requests for additional time to
review those materials “against the disadvantages of backloading the pretrial schedule.” Op. and
Order, ECF No. 82, at 5.
Defendant’s requested deadline of February 9, 2024 for motions for Rule 17(c)
subpoenas illustrates the problems inherent in additional delay. On that schedule, those motions
would not be ripe until March 1, 2024, three days before the trial is scheduled to begin—after
which the court would have to rule, the subpoenas (if any) would have to issue, the materials
would have to be produced, and Defendant would have to review them, all of which could take
considerable time, which would frustrate Rule 17(c)’s purpose “to expedite the trial by providing
Page 2 of 4
PDF Page 4
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 146 Filed 11/07/23 Page 3 of 4
a time and place before trial for the inspection of the subpoenaed materials.” Bowman Dairy Co.
v. United States, 341 U.S. 214, 220 (1951) (citation omitted). That said, the court will permit
one more partial extension of the deadline for motions for Rule 17(c) subpoenas of about a
month. That will still allow those motions to be briefed and decided, and any subpoenaed
materials to be produced and reviewed before the scheduled trial.
With respect to motions to compel, the court will permit a deadline extension of about
two weeks. As Defendant requests, this will permit the parties to further confer regarding any
outstanding discovery requests, and will allow him time to file motions with respect to any
unresolved disputes. See Motion at 1-3. After that deadline, Defendant may seek leave to file
any additional motions for good cause—for instance, if the motions are related to discovery
produced by the government following that deadline. That will preserve Defendant’s right to
raise motions with respect to all government discovery. See id. at 5.
Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Pretrial Motions Related
to Discovery and Subpoenas, ECF No. 129, is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
It is hereby ORDERED that the deadlines set forth in the court’s Pretrial Order, ECF No. 39, and
the court’s Opinion and Order, ECF No. 82, are AMENDED as follows:
Motions to compel shall be filed by November 27, 2023; any oppositions to those
motions shall be filed by December 11, 2023; and any replies in support of those
motions shall be filed by December 18, 2023.
Motions for Rule 17(c) subpoenas shall be filed by December 13, 2023; any
oppositions to those motions shall be filed by December 27, 2023; and any replies
in support of those motions shall be filed by January 3, 2024.
Page 3 of 4
PDF Page 5
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 146 Filed 11/07/23 Page 4 of 4
Following these deadlines, Defendant may request leave to late-file a motion for good cause, and
the court will consider that request.
Date: November 7, 2023
TANYA S. CHUTKAN
United States District Judge
Page 4 of 4
Back to 
