KARON BOWDRE, District Judge
Before the court is the motion (doc. 359) by Robert Thomson to be excluded from the court's Order of December 16, 2004 (doc. 325). That Order imposes restrictions on potential witnesses in the above-styled case, consistent with Rule 615 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Rule 615 and the court's Order are designed to prevent the testimony of potential witnesses from being affected by the testimony of other witnesses or the media's reports about such testimony. Mr. Thomson has received a subpoena to appear as a witness in this case. Mr. Thomson seeks to be exempted from the restrictions of the Order because he is a defendant in a somewhat related, but distinct, criminal matter (CR-04-J-0240-S).
Mr. Thomson requests exemption from the court's Order to do things himself that are best done by his attorneys, such as interviewing people and observing testimony in this case. The court's Order does not preclude Mr. Thomson's attorneys from interviewing people, sitting in the courtroom during this case, or taking other steps necessary to prepare his defense in the case against him. The Order likewise does not preclude Mr. Thomson's attorneys from reviewing statements of other people who may be witnesses in the above-styled case with Mr. Thomson and discussing them with him — as they relate to the separate charges against Mr. Thomson. In fact, the Order does not preclude Mr. Thompson from discussing his case with other witnesses in this case as long as they do not discuss their testimony or potential testimony in this case. Further, the Order does not preclude Mr. Thomson's attorneys from reading or watching news accounts of this trial for anything that could be relevant to the separate and distinct charges against Mr. Thomson.
The Order does, however, preclude Mr. Thomson from reviewing statements of other witnesses in this case that directly relate to or touch on matters involved in Mr. Scrushy's case and discussing those with his attorneys or other witnesses. Attorneys, including Mr. Thomson's attorneys, are under a standard ethical duty to so limit their discussions with their clients who are potential witnesses in a case in which a Rule 615 order has been entered.
The court further notes that the Government's unopposed motion to continue Mr. Thomson's trial from its setting in March until May 2005 has been granted. Mr. Thomson will be released from the terms of this court's Order upon the first of three events to occur: he testifies in this case and is excused by the court as a witness; he is notified by party who subpoenaed him that he has been released as a possible witness; or the case is tried to conclusion. Mr. Thomson should be released from the restraints imposed by this court's Order with ample time to read any missed accounts of this trial and to discuss with his attorneys the trial testimony of witnesses in this case as needed for the preparation of his defense.
Accordingly, the court ORDERS that Robert Thomson's motion for exclusion from the terms of this court's Order of December 16, 2004, is DENIED. However, in the event that a specific need arises in the course of preparation for his trial, Mr. Thomson can move for exemption from the Order for a specific limited purpose.
The court seriously doubts that much, if any, of the testimony in the case against Mr. Scrushy will be material to the preparation of Mr. Thompson's case, which involves totally different charges and facts, and in which Mr. Scrushy is not a defendant. Therefore, the court does not see how these limitations can detrimentally affect the preparation of Mr. Thompson's defense. However, if Mr. Thompson's attorneys can provide more precise information of how compliance with the court's Order impinges on the defense of his case, they are free to file another motion.
DONE and ORDERED.