USA v. Stottlar

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
United States of America
v. Criminal No. 20-cr-61-JD
Opinion No. 2020 DNH 202
Jared Stottlar
O R D E R
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 15,
defendant Jared Stottlar moves for leave to depose Sergeant
Justin R. Howe of the Sanbornton Police Department (doc. no.
31). The government objects.
Background
Stottlar is charged with two counts of possession with
intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1), and one count of possession of a firearm in
furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 924(c). He has pleaded not guilty to the charges.
Discussion
Stottlar contends that he needs to depose Sergeant Howe in
order to “present his case including any pretrial motions,
possibly including motions to suppress which may be dispositive
. . . .” Doc. 31 ¶ 6. He argues that Sergeant Howe’s
Case 1:20-cr-00061-LM Document 34 Filed 11/19/20 Page 1 of 3

2
deposition testimony is necessary to “clear up confusion and
uncertainty” about a stop and search in which Sergeant Howe was
involved. Id. ¶ 10.
The government objects to Stottlar’s request to depose
Sergeant Howe. The government argues that Stottlar has not
shown that the “exceptional circumstances” required for the
court to authorize a deposition of Sergeant Howe under Rule 15
exist. Stottlar did not file a reply.
A party may move that a prospective witness be
deposed in order to preserve testimony for trial.
The court may grant the motion because of
exceptional circumstances and in the interest of
justice.
Fed. R. Crim. P. 15(a). Rule 15 is not intended “to provide a
method of pretrial discovery . . . .” Fed. R. Crim. P. 15,
Notes of the Advisory Committee on the 1974 Amendment. Rather,
the “principal objective” of Rule 15 “is the preservation of
evidence for use at trial.” Id. “Allowing depositions too
freely would create the risks that parties would seek to use
depositions as a discovery device in criminal cases.” United
States v. Mann, 590 F.2d 361, 365 (1st Cir. 1978).
Stottlar has not shown that his request to depose Sergeant
Howe is within the scope of Rule 15. Stottlar does not show
that an exceptional circumstance exists which justifies the
deposition, such as a likelihood that Sergeant Howe will be
unavailable for trial. E.g., United States v. Keithan, 751 F.2d
Case 1:20-cr-00061-LM Document 34 Filed 11/19/20 Page 2 of 3

3
9, 12 (1st Cir. 1984) (holding that witnesses’ physical
infirmities that prevented them from leaving their home far from
the courthouse qualified as “exceptional circumstances”); United
States v. Bunnell, 201 F. Supp. 2d 169, 171 (D. Me. 2002)
(finding that witness was likely to be unavailable for trial
because of “degenerative and debilitating brain disorder”).
Rather, the purpose of the proposed deposition is to obtain
discovery for motions practice. See doc. 31 ¶¶ 6, 8. That
purpose, however, does not fall within the bounds of Rule 15.
See United States v. Poulin, 592 F. Supp. 2d 137, 145 (D. Me.
2008) (rejecting defendant’s motion to depose a witness under
Rule 15 because proposed deposition was for purpose of obtaining
“information with which he plans to demonstrate that the
Government's evidence is faulty”).
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Stottlar’s motion to depose
Sergeant Howe (doc. no. 31) is denied.
SO ORDERED.
__________________________
Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.
United States District Judge
November 19, 2020
cc: Counsel of Record.
Case 1:20-cr-00061-LM Document 34 Filed 11/19/20 Page 3 of 3