USA v. Hardison

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	) 	No. 3:25-CR-48-TAV-DCP
v. 	)
)
BRYAN HARDISON, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case is before the Court on Defendant Bryan Hardison’s Motion to Compel Production
and Preservation of State Court Affidavit, Search Warrant, Sworn Testimony, and Preliminary
Hearing Materials [Doc. 228]. District Judge Thomas A. Varlan referred this motion to the
undersigned for disposition or recommendation as appropriate [Doc. 230]. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b).
Defendant Hardison represents himself with the assistance of elbow counsel, after the undersigned
found Defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel in a Faretta hearing on
September 11, 2025 [Doc. 51 pp. 3–4, 6].
In the instant motion, Defendant Hardison requests an Order requiring production by the
Government of “state origin materials” connected to the search warrant, probable cause finding
and preliminary hearing, and any records of those proceedings [Doc. 228 pp. 1–3]. Defendant
states the Government appears to rely on state probable cause materials, which are central to his
defense because they may bear on probable cause, suppression, Franks issues, informant
reliability, Brady/Giglio disclosure,1 impeachment, the legality of the search, the basis for federal
adoption of the case, and whether the Government relies on uncharged conduct to justify the search
1 	Defendant references Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and Giglio v. United States,
405 U.S. 150 (1972).
Case 3:25-cr-00048-TAV-DCP Document 232 Filed 05/28/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID
#: <pageID>

2
[Id. at 3]. Defendant requests confirmation of the existence of the requested items, as well as
production of responsive materials [Id. at 4–5]. As authority, Defendant relies on Federal Rules
of Criminal Procedure 12 and 16 [Id. at 4].
Defendant filed this motion six days before the pretrial conference and eleven days before
his trial. Due to the nearness of the trial, the Court finds exceptional circumstances permit
determination of this motion prior to the expiration of the response time and without the
Government’s response. See E.D. Tenn. L.R. 7.2.
For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion [Doc. 228].
I. 	ANALYSIS
As an initial basis for denial, Defendant’s motion seeking discovery is untimely. The Court
set Defendant’s pretrial motion deadline of October 23, 2025, after several extensions [Doc. 62 p.
2]. “A party may raise by pretrial motion any defense, objection, or request that the court can
determine without a trial on the merits.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(1). Moreover, discovery motions
under Rule 16 must be raised pretrial. Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)(E). Untimely motions may be
permitted where the party shows “good cause” for the untimely filing. Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(c)(3).
Good cause requires “an explanation for both the delay and the potential prejudice.” United States
v. Trujillo-Molina, 678 F. App’x 335, 337 (6th Cir. 2017) (citations omitted). As stated above,
Defendant’s pretrial motions deadline expired on October 23, 2025. Defendant’s motion includes
neither an explanation for his delay in filing this motion nor an explanation of potential prejudice.
Defendant also fails to include the minimum “legitimate explanation for the failure to timely file.”
Id. (citing United States v. Walden, 625 F.3d 961, 965 (6th Cir. 2010)). Accordingly, Defendant
fails to provide good cause for the untimely filing of this motion, and it should be denied on that
basis alone.
Case 3:25-cr-00048-TAV-DCP Document 232 Filed 05/28/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID
#: <pageID>

3
Defendant’s motion is also duplicative of prior filings in this case that addressed the same
or similar issues raised here [See Docs. 156, 165, & 217]. The Court addressed several of
Defendant’s motions to compel discovery in the Memorandum and Order entered March 3, 2026
[Doc. 156]. There, the Court explained “Defendant has failed to establish that any of the[] rules
[governing discovery disclosures] require disclosure of the requested material at this time, or
earlier than proposed by the Government” [Id. p. 7]. Many of Defendant’s requests are duplicative
or closely aligned with discovery motions already adjudicated, and as the Court recently reiterated
to Defendant, “subsequent filings seeking to re-raise these same arguments will be summarily
denied.” [Doc. 217 p. 13 (addressing multiple duplicative motions, including a motion to compel
production and authentication of discovery); see also Doc. 165 (summarily denying Defendant’s
Motion to Produce Rule 16 Discovery as “untimely, filed without leave or a showing of good
cause, and duplicat[ive of] issues already raised and denied by the undersigned)].
Finally, to the extent that any of the requests in this motion are new requests, Defendant
has not demonstrated any of the requested information is discoverable under Rule 16. Discovery
of documents and tangible items in criminal cases is limited to certain types of materials, including
items the Government will use in its case in chief or items in its possession that are material to
Defendant’s defense. Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(E). The Government violates due process when it
withholds from the defendant favorable evidence that is “material either to guilt or punishment.”
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963). The rule extends to evidence that could be used to
impeach the credibility of a government witness. Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154–55
(1972). The Government must disclose, upon a defendant’s request, any oral or written statements
of the defendant, the defendant’s prior record; certain documents or tangible evidence within the
government’s possession, custody, or control; reports of examinations or tests; and a summary of
Case 3:25-cr-00048-TAV-DCP Document 232 Filed 05/28/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID
#: <pageID>

4
any expert witness testimony. Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a). As the Court previously found, the
Government has met its discovery obligations under Rule 16 and Brady, as well as the Court’s
Scheduling Order [see Doc. 156 p. 7]. Additionally, to the extent Defendant seeks witness
statements in the Government’s possession, the timing of disclosure of witness statements is
governed by the Jencks Act; therefore, statements of the Government’s witnesses need not be
disclosed until the witness testifies on direct examination. See 18 U.S.C. § 3500(a); Fed. R. Crim.
P. 26.2.
Accordingly, the Court finds Defendant’s requests should be DENIED.
II. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion [Doc. 228]. The
Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Memorandum and Order to Defendant at his
place of detention.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
_ 	_________________________
Debra C. Poplin
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:25-cr-00048-TAV-DCP Document 232 Filed 05/28/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID
#: <pageID>