DAVID CAMPBELL, District Judge
Pending before the Court are motions in limine regarding Rule 404(b) evidence filed by Defendants Rudy Jaime and Robert Rienstra. Docs. ##953, 970. The Government has filed responses to the motions and Defendants have filed replies. Docs. ##1064-65, 1077, 1142. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the motions in part.
Discussion
Defendants seek to compel the Government to promptly identify, with specificity, any Rule 404(b) evidence it intends to offer against Defendants at trial, and to preserve their right to seek preclusion of evidence that is not properly disclosed, is irrelevant, or is substantially more prejudicial than probative. Docs. ##953, 970 at 2. The Government responds that it "will give reasonable notice in advance of trial of the general nature of the extrinsic Rule 404(b) evidence it intends to offer at trial." Docs. ##1064-65 at 2.
Rule 404(b) requires the Government to provide "reasonable" notice of prior acts evidence it intends to use at trial, whether that evidence will be used during its case in chief, as impeachment, or as possible rebuttal evidence. United States v. Vega, 188 F.3d 1150, 1153 (9th Cir. 1999). What notice is "reasonable" will, of course, vary from case to case. In this complex prosecution, the Court concludes that reasonable notice requires more advance notice than might be necessary in typical criminal cases. Among other considerations, the deadline for filing motions in limine is March 17, 2006. See Doc. #1012 ¶ 11. Responses are due on March 29, 2006. See id. The motions will be addressed at the final pretrial conference on April 5, 2006. See id. ¶ 12. If Defendants are to file timely motions in limine concerning Rule 404(b) evidence, they will need notice of the evidence in advance of March 17, 2006. The Court therefore will require the Government to comply with the Rule 404(b) notice requirements no later than February 24, 2006.
Defendants also ask the Court to require a detailed disclosure of both instrinsic and extrinsic evidence the Government intends to introduce under Rule 404(b). See Doc. #1077. Other than requiring disclosure by February 24, 2006, the Court will not imp ose disclosure obligations beyond those required by Rule 404(b). If Defendants believe the Government has not complied with the rule, they can explain why in timely motions in limine.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The Government shall comply with the notice requirement of Rule 404(b) by February 24, 2006.
2. The motions in limine regarding Rule 404(b) evidence filed by Defendants Jaime and Rienstra (Docs. ##953, 970) are granted in part as set forth in this order.
3. Defendant Jaime's request for oral argument (Doc. #953) is denied.