USA v. Brewer, No. 6:19-cr-22-RBD-DCI (2025)

Case details
Full caption
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. BRYAN L. BREWER
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decided
2025
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. BRYAN L. BREWER, Slip Copy (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12025 WL 2636404Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.United States District Court, M.D. Florida,ORLANDO DIVISION.UNITED STATES OF AMERICAv.BRYAN L. BREWERCase No. 6:19-cr-22-RBD-DCI|09/11/2025ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE*1 Before the Court is Defendant's motion to compeldiscovery and inspection (Doc. 395), which this Courtdenied via endorsement (Doc. 396), with this written Orderexplaining its reasoning.Attorney Bryan Savy, Esq. recently made an appearance asone of the counsel of record for Defendant Bryan L. Brewerin connection with these highly contentious revocationproceedings. (Doc. 389.) On September 5, 2025, Mr. Savysubmitted the instant motion (Doc. 395), seeking to compelthe Government to turn over comprehensive discovery fromU.S. Probation Officers, which Defendant asserts will supporthis allegation of misconduct against those officers (see Doc.350).Mr. Savy's motion, at best, fails to appreciate—or, at worst,misrepresents— the law related to discovery obligations ofthe Government and probation officers. First and foremost,the motion's overarching reliance on Brady v. Maryland, 373U.S. 83 (1963), is misplaced. (See Doc. 395, p. 1.) Bradyobligations have no application in revocation proceedings.See United States v. Ataya, 145 F. App'x 331, 332 n.2 (11thCir. 2005) (citing Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 782(1973)). Moreover, probation officers are not agents of theprosecution, nor are their documents considered to be in thecustody of the Government. See United States v. Brazel, 102F.3d 1120, 1150 (11th Cir. 1997); United States v. Thomas,746 F. Supp. 3d 1392, 1394 (S.D. Fla. 2024).So the entire premise of the motion is unsupported. If thismisapprehension were the sole problem with Mr. Savy'smotion, he might be faced with only a denial rather thanthis Show Cause Order. What is more unfortunate for him,and more troubling to the Court, is the fact that nearly everysingle case cite in Mr. Savy's twelve-page filing is incomplete,inaccurate, or made up. The most problematic portions arehighlighted below:1. The motion (Doc. 395, p. 2) references United States v.Frazier, 394 F.3d 612, 618 (8th Cir. 2005). Mr. Savy quotesthis case as saying: “The disclosure requirement of Rule 32.1is not limited to evidence the government intends to use atthe hearing.” This case does not include this quotation and, infact, has nothing to do with supervised release.2. The motion (Doc. 395, p. 2) references Brady v.Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963). Mr. Savy quotes Bradyas follows: “[S]uppression by the prosecution of evidencefavorable to the accused...violates due process where theevidence is material either to guilt or to punishment.” Thisquotation omits via ellipsis the words “upon request”—alikely important omission in this context.3. The motion (Doc. 395, p. 3) references United States v.Hasting, 461 U.S. 499, 505 (1983). Mr. Savy quotes the caseas follows: Federal courts possess “supervisory power overthe administration of criminal justice in the federal courts.”While this case does speak to supervisory power, the quotedlanguage does not appear anywhere in the case. Similarlanguage—but not this quote— appears in the concurrence,which is not cited.*2 4. The motion (Doc. 395, p. 3) references United Statesv. Bundy, 968 F.3d 1019, 1033 (9th Cir. 2020). Mr. Savyrelies on this case for the proposition:“This includes the power to order discovery beyond Rule32.1's requirements when necessary to ensure fairness.” Butthe cited case does not discuss Rule 32.1 or probation orsupervised release.5. The motion (Doc. 395, p. 6) references United Statesv. Price, 566 F.3d 900, 913 (9th Cir. 2009). Mr. Savy citesthis case for the proposition: “phone records are discoverablewhen relevant to showing coordination or bias.” But this casehas nothing to do with telephone records.6. The motion (Doc. 395, p. 7) references United States v.Noel, 708 F.3d 245, 254 (1st Cir. 2013). This case is entirelyfabricated and does not exist as cited.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. BRYAN L. BREWER, Slip Copy (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.27. The motion (Doc. 395, p. 7) references United States v.Safavian,435 F. Supp. 2d 36, 46 (D.D.C. 2006). Mr. Savy quotes thiscase as saying: “The government must always produce anyexisting document which contains discoverable information.”This quotation does not appear in that case.8. The motion (Doc. 395, p. 8) references United States v.Mmahat, 106 F.3d 89, 94 (5th Cir. 1997). This case is citedfor the proposition: the “entire probation file is discoverablewhen material to revocation proceedings.” This case wasabrogated, and the subsequent history was not cited. Further,this case has nothing to do with probation files or revocationproceedings.9. The motion (Doc. 395, p. 9) references United States v.Siddiqui, 235 F.3d 1318, 1323 (11th Cir. 2000). Mr. Savycites this case for the proposition:“computer audit logs [are] discoverable to show timing andaccess to evidence.” The cited case does not stand for thisassertion.10. The motion (Doc. 395, p. 10) references United States v.Hernandez, 183 F. Supp. 3d 468, 480 (S.D.N.Y. 2016). Thiscase is entirely fabricated.In sum, the filing submitted by Mr. Savy is replete withcitations to cases that do not exist; citations to cases thatdo not support or even relate to the propositions for whichthey are cited; and quotations of cases where the quotedlanguage does not appear. These references appear to violate:Local Rule 2.01(b)(2)(c); Local Rule 2.01(e); Local Rule3.01(a); Florida Bar Rule 4-1.1; Florida Bar Rule 4-1.6;Florida Bar Rule 4-3.1; Florida Bar Rule 4-3.3; and FloridaBar Rule 4-8.4. These misattributions appear to be typicalof AI hallucinations, a rising problem faced by courtsacross the country. See Coomer v. Lindell, No. 22-CV-01129,2025 WL 1865282, at *1, *8–9 (D. Colo. July 7, 2025);Jaclyn Diaz, A Recent High-Profile Case of AI HallucinationServes as a Stark Warning, NPR (July 10, 2025) https://www.npr.org/2025/07/10/nx-s1-5463512 (listing fake cases,fake quotes from real cases, and real cases with unsupportedpropositions as main issues with using AI in court filings).Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:1. Bryan Savy, Esq. is ORDERED TO PERSONALLYAPPEAR AND SHOW CAUSE why sanctions shouldnot be imposed for the above violations, including butnot limited to: fines; suspension from the Bar of theMiddle District of Florida; referral to the GrievanceCommittee; referral to the Florida Bar; and/or any otherapplicable sanctions under the Court's inherent powers orother applicable authority. See Purchasing Power, LLC v.Bluestem Brands, Inc., 851 F.3d 1218, 1223 (11th Cir.2017) (“Courts have the inherent power to police thoseappearing before them.”).*3 2. The hearing is set for Thursday, October 2, 2025,at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 4A of the Orlando FederalCourthouse. Defendant's presence is not required.3. Mr. Savy is DIRECTED to provide a copy of this Orderto Defendant.4. Mr. Savy's motion to amend and refile his motion tocompel (Doc. 397) is DENIED.DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida,on September 11, 2025.All CitationsSlip Copy, 2025 WL 2636404End of Document© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access