My understanding of what is on the docket so far:
1. The defendant has the right to know what evidence the government intends to introduce at trial, particularly evidence of prior acts. That's basic discovery practice.
2. The defense lawyer filed a motion to compel disclosure of the prior acts the government intends to introduce into evidence. That's good lawyering.
3. A local rule requires the parties to try to settle disputes before filing motions, and to let the court know that they tried, and the defense lawyer failed to do that. Failing to follow local rules can be (or should be) a little embarrassing, but no harm was done (except perhaps to annoy the judge somewhat).
4. Fortunately for the defense, the prosecution may have provided a counter-annoyance:
1. On January 6, 2009, counsel for Defendant spoke to Assistant United States Attorney Michael Leibson and asked him whether the government intended to offer certain evidence contained in the discovery under Rule 404(b) because, if so, Defendant intended to file a Motion in Limine seeking exclusion of the evidence. AUSA Leibson stated that he did not know whether the government would be seeking to introduce the evidence. AUSA Leibson suggested that Defendant file a standard motion requesting notice of any 404(b) evidence. For that reason, Defendant is filing this motion.
From the tone of the first order denying defendant's motion, I think that the court is likely to be pissed to learn that a "standard motion" has been filed because the AUSA can't make up his mind (assuming that what the defense lawyer has stated is an accurate description of their telephone conversation). It almost sounds as if the AUSA is stalling for time, and telling the defense to file a motion in order to give the AUSA more time to make up his mind. That's not something the judge is going to want to hear.
I don't know what the court is going to do, but if the AUSA isn't careful, he might find himself barred from introducing evidence of Hendrickson's prior guilty plea and conviction for failing to file an income tax return (which I believe would otherwise be admissible to show willfulness). I don't think that the judge will do that, and the judge will simply order the AUSA to disclose, but I think the judge will let the AUSA know that he thought about it, and might do it the next time it looks like the AUSA is stonewalling for no good reason.