DOJ-OGR-00001744.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 49 Filed 08/25/20 Page 2 of 4 alleged victims and witnesses substantially in advance of trial. But that alone does not justify such relief at this very early stage. Following the close of discovery, the parties should meet and confer on an appropriate schedule in light of all relevant factors. If the parties are unable to reach agreement as to a pretrial disclosure schedule, the Defendant may renew her request. The denial is therefore without prejudice. Il. The Defendant’s Conditions of Confinement In her August 10, 2020 letter motion, the Defendant also sought “an order directing [BOP] to release Ms. Maxwell into the general population and provide Ms. Maxwell with increased access to the discovery materials while she is detained so that she can meaningfully participate in the preparation of her defense.” Dkt. No. 38 at 1. The Government responded that the BOP has modified the conditions of Ms. Maxwell’s confinement so that she has access to discovery materials thirteen hours a day, seven days a week. Dkt. No. 41 at 5. The Defendant’s reply credited the BOP’s change in policy but nonetheless asked the Court to “confirm these changes in an order to the BOP” and “that the Court order the BOP to grant Ms. Maxwell the same privileges given to other detainees.” Dkt. No. 42 at 4—S. The Court denies this request. The BOP is providing the Defendant with conditions that allow her access to discovery materials so that she can meaningfully participate in the preparation of her defense. Further action by the Court as this juncture is therefore unnecessary. Should facts on the ground change such that the Defendant is not being provided sufficient access to her legal materials, defense counsel may seek intervention by the Court. The Defendant also requests that the Court order BOP that Ms. Maxwell “be monitored in the same manner as other pretrial detainees and that the Court order the BOP to grant Ms. DOJ-OGR-00001744