DOJ-OGR-00011207.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 703 Filed 07/12/22 Page2of7 for defense production of Rule 16 materials. The Government is prejudiced by the defendant’s decision to delay production until after the close of the Government’s case, and the defendant should therefore be precluded from offering the agreement in her case-in-chief. And in any event, the agreement should be excluded under Rule 403. 1. Applicable Law Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(b)(1)(A), if a defendant “requests disclosure under Rule 16(a)(1)(E) and the government complies,” then the defendant must permit the Government to inspect any documents in the defendant’s “possession, custody, or control,” which the defendant intends to use in her “‘case-in-chief at trial.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(b)(1)(A). Although “[a] defendant would always like more information about the government’s case before revealing anything about his or her own,” Rule 16 “conditions a defendant’s disclosure obligations on the government’s having made certain specified disclosures, not on the government’s laying open its entire case or the defendant’s satisfaction.” United States v. Rajaratnam, 09 Cr. 1184 (RJH), 2011 WL 723530, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2011); see Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 Advisory Committee Note—1974 Amend. (“The majority of the Advisory Committee is of the view that ... the giving a broader right of discovery to the defense is dependent upon giving also a broader right of discovery to the prosecution.”). When the defendant “avail[s herself] of the strategy to obtain discovery of the government, [s]he must comply with the requirement for reciprocal discovery”—even as to exhibits the defendant might introduce only if the defendant herself testifies. United States v. Ryan, 448 F. Supp. 810, 810-11 (S.D.N.Y. 1978). Just as the Government has a continuing duty to disclose discoverable material after its initial Rule 16 production, so the defense has the same continuing duty. See Fed. R. Evid. 16(c). DOJ-OGR-00011207