Criminal discovery; MCR 6.201; Complainants’ cell-phone data; Brady v Maryland material; Right to present a defense; Chambers v Mississippi; In camera review; People v Stanaway; Privileged therapy records; MCR 6.201(C)(2); “Fishing expedition”; People v Davis-Christian

The court held that defendant was not entitled to the complainants’ entire extracted cell-phone data, but that remand was appropriate for further proceedings if he continued to seek additional discoverable material. It also upheld the trial court’s denial of his motion for an in camera review of one complainant’s therapy records. Defendant was charged with CSC I based on allegations from three complainants concerning conduct more than 25 years earlier. He sought their full cell-phone extractions and one complainant’s therapy records. As to the phone data, the court held that Brady, Chambers, and MCR 6.201 required disclosure of exculpatory or otherwise discoverable material, but “none of these authorities” required the prosecution to surrender “the entirety of a complainant’s cellular phone data to a defendant.” The court reasoned that some data, such as texts about defendant or the case, might be discoverable as “statements[] pertaining to the case,” but it was “virtually inconceivable that the universe of all phone data” fell within MCR 6.201(A)(2), Brady, or other discovery authority. The court adopted principles from persuasive authority requiring an in camera process because neither defendant nor a defense expert is entitled to review phone data before the trial court does so, and only data “properly subject to disclosure or discovery” may be provided. It also held that interested parties should be heard about “the least intrusive method” for identifying relevant material. The court separately held that defendant was not entitled to an in camera review of a complainant’s therapy records because he waived any privilege challenge and failed to show a good-faith belief grounded in articulable fact. The court reasoned that the request was “essentially, a fishing expedition” because defendant identified no specific evidence likely to be found in the records. Affirmed and remanded for further proceedings concerning cell-phone data if necessary.