DOJ-OGR-00001720.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 41 Filed 08/13/20 Page 2 of 5 Honorable Alison J. Nathan August 13, 2020 Page 2 protective order was docketed on Friday, July 31, 2020'—the timing of which was principally the result of the defendant’s own refusal to agree to the terms of the proposed protective order. The Government then promptly produced an initial discovery production totaling more than 12,000 pages the following Wednesday, August 5, 2020. Additionally, the Government continues to produce discovery and earlier today made a second production, as the Government advised defense counsel last week it intended to do, totaling more than 150,000 pages, principally consisting of financial records.” Although the Government expects to continue to produce a large amount of electronic discovery, the two productions already made constitute the vast majority of initial discovery, including search warrant applications and subpoena returns, which the Government has now produced more than a week in advance of its deadline of August 21, 2020, and approximately 11 months prior to trial. In sum, the Government has acted expeditiously in meeting its initial discovery obligations, providing more than 165,000 pages of discovery materials in less than two weeks following the entry of the protective order—all of which was accompanied by detailed indices describing the general topics and sources of the materials. Against this backdrop, the Defense Letter claims that over the course of just five days, defense counsel determined, having “expeditiously reviewed [the discovery] for high level content,” Def. Ltr. at 2, that they cannot possibly investigate the charges against their client based on the materials provided thus far, and asking the Court to order the Government to provide the defendant with a partial witness list. That request should be denied. Tellingly, the defendant cites no authority that requires the relief requested at this stage in the litigation—i.e., prior to the completion of discovery and approximately 11 months before trial—nor is the Government aware of any. For example, in the lead case cited by defense counsel, United States v. Cannone, 528 F.2d 296, 301 (2d Cir. 1975), although the opinion acknowledged the ability of district courts to compel disclosure of the identity of government witnesses, the Second Circuit reversed for abuse of discretion the district court’s decision to do so in that case because the defendant there, as here, had made “only an abstract, conclusory claim that such disclosure was necessary to its proper preparation for trial.” /d. at 301-02. In United States v. Rueb, 00 Cr. 091 (RWS), 2001 WL 96177, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2001), while the Court ordered the Government to provide the defendant with its witness list, it did so one month before trial, following the completion of discovery production and in the context of pretrial motions. Those circumstances plainly are not present here. Finally, in United States v. Warme, a Western District of New York opinion from 2009 that has never been cited by another court, although the Court ' The Defense Letter states that the protective order was “entered” by the Court on July 30, 2020. While that is the date the protective order was signed by the Court, it was posted to the docket on July 31, 2020. > The Government’s most recent discovery transmittal letter also included the months and years of birth of the three victims identified in the Indictment, to enable the defendant to evaluate whether she will make any motions or legal arguments—more than four months in advance of the deadline for any such motion—relating to the ages of the victims. DOJ-OGR-00001720