DOJ-OGR-00011208.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 703 Filed 07/12/22 Page3of7 Where either party fails to comply with its discovery obligations, the Court has discretion to “prohibit that party from introducing the undisclosed evidence.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(d)(2)(C). Where a defendant makes an untimely production of Rule 16 materials, including by “not disclosing the document in the first place or by not fulfilling her continuing duty to disclose,” it is “properly within the district court’s discretion” to exclude the evidence. United States v. Bruce, 75 F. App’x 849, 851 (2d Cir. 2003); see United States v. Weiss, 930 F.2d 185, 199 (2d Cir. 1991) (affirming exclusion of evidence that the defense disclosed to the government after “[t]he government had already rested its case and the relevant government witnesses who could have provided information about the documents were out of state,” because doing so “would have given the defense an unfair advantage”); United States v. Napout, No. 15 Cr. 252 (PKC), 2017 WL 6375729, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2017) (describing the “approach used by many courts”: “if the Court determine[s] that a Defendant could have made timely disclosure, but failed to timely do so, the defendant ran the risk that the exhibit would be excluded”). I. Factual Background The Government has made thirty-eight discovery productions to the defense under Rule 16(a), beginning on August 5, 2020, totaling over two million pages, triggering the defendant’s reciprocal discovery obligations under Rule 16(b). On June 2, 2021, the Court ordered the Government to produce its Jencks Act material and proposed exhibit list on October 11, and the defendant to provide her Rule 16 disclosures on November 8—three weeks in advance of trial. (Dkt. No. 297). On November 8, 2021, the defendant provided the Government with a Rule 16 production. On December 10, 2021—more than a month later, shortly after the close of the DOJ-OGR-00011208