USA v. Cicolella

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
United States of America,
Plaintiff,
v.
Kenneth John Cicolella,
Defendant.
No. CR-25-01316-001-PHX-GMS
ORDER
Pending before this Court are: (1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc 48); 2)
Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Compel (Doc 50); 3) Plaintiff’s Notice (Doc. 51); and, 4),
Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions. For the following reasons each of the three Motions and
the Notice (to the extent it seeks relief from this Court) is denied.
Plaintiff’s First Motion to Compel (Doc. 48) is not meaningfully distinct from his
Second Motion to Compel (Doc. 50). In each, Defendant asks for a paper original of the
complete discovery and then lists the discovery which he expects to receive in items
enumerated 1(A) through 1(D).
Nevertheless, in its Response, the government establishes that it has already
provided directly to defendant copies of the discovery that could be reasonably printed. It
has further provided electronic copies of all discovery to Defendants’ two prior counsel,
and has again provided all of the discovery to Mr. Cicolella’s present stand-by counsel in
electronic format. The government explains that it must provide part of the discovery in
electronic format because the discovery includes “video/audio files and large spreadsheets
Case 2:25-cr-01316-GMS Document 53 Filed 05/20/26 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(.html Excel and Cellebrite files) and other voluminous native files that could not be
printed.” The government further notes that it has provided a discovery log to the
Defendant, listing the files by Bates number and noting which files could not be printed.
It attaches this discovery log to its Response. The government notes that, as is reflected in
this discovery log
the government has already produced the items specifically identified
in Defendant’s motion to the extent such items exist. The ‘original warrants
and 30 day return for: 8510, 8511, 8512, 8513, and 8514’ (item 1(a) in
defendant’s motion) were produced at Bates 000015-79, 123-124, 188-212
and 671. There was no arrest warrant (item 1(B) or ‘exigent circumstances
warrant; (item 1(c)). Reports regarding defendant’s arrest, the investigation,
and witness statements (item 1(d) were also produced as reflected in the
discovery log (e.g. Bates 000012, 87-122, 210, 213-670 and 672-794).
Doc. 49 at 3. The government assures the Court that it will continue to comply with its
ongoing discovery obligations, and the Court cannot discern from anything in Defendant’s
motions that it has not.
Defendant’s two motions to compel, therefore, (Docs. 48 and 50) are denied, as is
his motion for sanctions based on the government’s production to date. (Doc. 52).
To the extent that Defendant’s Notice (Doc. 51) and his Motion for Sanctions
(Doc. 52) request this Court to open investigations into other serious alleged crimes, the
Court notes that the United States Constitution vests the authority to investigate and enforce
the law in the Executive and not the Judicial Branch of government. Therefore, this Court
has no power, nor authority, to undertake the requested investigation(s). That request, is,
therefore, also denied. Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant’s Motions to Compel (Docs. 48 and 50), his
Notice (Doc. 51), and his Motion for Sanctions/Motion to Dismiss Indictment (Doc. 52).
Dated this 20th day of May, 2026.
Case 2:25-cr-01316-GMS Document 53 Filed 05/20/26 Page 2 of 2