The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robert M. Takasugi United States District Sr. Judge
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
This matter has come before the court on a motion to compel discovery filed by Defendants Roya Rahmani, Alireza Mohammadmoradi, Moustafa Ahmady, Hossein Kalani Afshari, Hassan Rezaie, Navid Taj, and Mohammad Hossein Omidvar ("Defendants" ).
On November 7, 2007, Defendants Moustafa Ahmady and Roya Rahmnai filed their Motion to Compel Discovery, Document No. 545.*fn1
On the same day, Defendant Omidvar filed a motion to compel production of numerous discovery materials. (Doc. No. 546).
On November 29, 2007, the government filed a Second Superseding Indictment. ("Indictment"). The Indictment added two additional defendants and fifty-three additional counts.*fn2 Indictment, Doc. No. 677. The additional counts included charges of conspiracy, mail fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud and money laundering.
On December 3, 2007, the government filed its consolidated opposition to the discovery motions. Government's Consolidated Opposition to Defendants' Motions to Compel Discovery ("Gov't Opp'n"), Doc. No. 583. On December 10, 2007, Defendants Ahmady and Rahmnai filed their Reply. Defendants Ahmady's and Rahmani's Reply to Government's Opposition to Motion to Compel Discovery ("Reply"), Doc. No. 608.
On December 20, 2007, the government stated that "[it] has always worked under the assumption that the April  trial date will be the trial date - even with the Second Superseding Indictment. The government opposes any effort by some counsel to pretend that the April trial date is real, and then seek a last minute continuance of the matter." Government's Statement to the Court Regarding Motion and Trial Date Proposals ("Gov't Statement") at 3, Doc. No. 642.
On May 9, 2008, in recognition, in part, that some pretrial motions had been filed before the Indictment was filed and before new counsel had been appointed, the court ordered the parties to advise the court and other parties, in writing, as to each pending motion, whether the moving party would be withdrawing or revising it, or whether the motion stood as filed. May 9, 2008 Order Re: Scheduling of Pretrial Motions, Doc. No. 771. On the same day, the court continued the trial to April 14, 2009. Order Re: Excludable Time Findings Pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act, Doc. No. 770.
On July 15, 2008 all defendants renewed Defendants Ahmady and Rahmani's Motion to Compel Discovery. Defendants' Notice of Renewed Motion and Renewed Motion to Compel Discovery Based on Supplemental Authority ("Renewed Mot."), Doc. No. 804. On September 19, 2008, defendants advised the court and the government they were withdrawing the November 7, 2007 motion to compel discovery filed by Defendant Omidvar. Defendants' Response Re Status of Previous Motions. Doc. No. 835.
On September 19, 2008, the court ordered the parties to meet and confer about discovery related issues and to "file a joint statement regarding the discovery motion." September 19, 2008 Order Continuing Reply and Hearing Dates Regarding Dispositive Motions at ¶ 4, Doc. No. 838. On November 11, 2008, the parties filed their report. Joint Report Re Meet and Confer on Defendants' Motion to Compel Discovery ("Joint Report"), Doc. No. 880.
As of December 3, 2007, the government had produced approximately 172,000 pages of material in discovery, most of which has been scanned and provided to defendants on compact disks. Gov't Opp'n at 3. The materials include voluminous financial records and evidence obtained from foreign countries in multiple languages.*fn3 Order re: Excludable Time Findings Pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act, at 11, Doc. No. 770. In addition, the government has produced audio tapes, video tapes, books and other materials also in foreign languages. Id. Both the government and defendants agree on the "unusual and complex nature of the case." Id. at 13.
The court, having considered the pleadings and other papers filed herein, including the joint report filed by the parties, it appears that the only remaining discovery disputes are with respect to the following:
A. Brady and Giglio Request, in particular:
1. Materials concerning the Confidential Informant.
2. Documentation and materials relative to the U.S. Government's instructions to the MEK to continue fund raising activities; U.S. Government's provision of material support and resources to the MEK or any of its alleged aliases between 1997 and 2001, and; U.S. Government's provision of material support and resources to the MEK or any of its alleged aliases after 2001 to the present.
3. Henthorn materials concerning testifying officers.
4. Classified Information Procedure Act ("CIPA") materials identified to the government through defendant's request served on the ...