DOJ-OGR-00001788.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 63 Filed 10/07/20 Page 2 of 8 Honorable Alison J. Nathan October 7, 2020 Page 2 returns. The Government is continuing the process of reviewing and preparing productions of electronic discovery materials, which include extractions of data from numerous electronic devices. The Government expects that it will meet the November 9, 2020 deadline for the completion of electronic discovery productions. Additionally, the Government recognizes that its disclosure obligations are ongoing, and the Government will continue to review the Prosecution Team Files for any additional discoverable or exculpatory materials. In particular, the Government is aware of its obligations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and its progeny, and will promptly produce any exculpatory material of which it becomes aware. The Government’s Rule 16 discovery productions do not include witness statements or material under Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) and its progeny, consistent with the common practice and law within this Circuit. As indicated in a prior letter, the Government intends to produce all such materials to the defense well in advance of trial.' Specifically, although the parties have not yet conferred regarding a schedule for disclosure of witness statements, the Government is prepared to produce all statements and impeachment material for witnesses it expects to call at trial as early as four weeks prior to trial. Additionally, the Government is prepared to produce any statements by witnesses who it does not expect to call at trial as early as eight weeks prior to trial, subject to restrictions to protect those individuals’ privacy to be negotiated by the parties. I. Applicable Law Governing Disclosure of Other Investigative Files The disclosure obligations set forth in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16, Brady, and Giglio apply to materials in the Government’s “possession.” As a general matter, though “[a]n individual prosecutor is presumed . . . to have knowledge of all information gathered in connection with his office’s investigation of the case[,] . . . knowledge on the part of persons employed by a different office of the government does not in all instances warrant the imputation of knowledge to the prosecutor... .” United States v. Avellino, 136 F.3d 249, 255 (2d Cir. 1998) (citations omitted); see also United States v. Locascio, 6 F.3d 924, 948-49 (2d Cir. 1993) (declining to “infer the prosecutors’ knowledge simply because some other government agents knew about” additional evidence where federal prosecutors were unaware of documents in possession of FBI agents who were “uninvolved in the investigation or trial of the defendants”); United States v. Quinn, 445 F.2d 940, 944 (2d Cir. 1971) (declining to impute knowledge of prosecutor in Florida to prosecutor in New York and noting that the “Department of Justice alone has thousands of employees”). The imposition of such “an unlimited duty on a prosecutor to inquire of other offices not working with the prosecutor’s office on the case in question would inappropriately require [courts] to adopt ‘a monolithic view of government’ that would ‘condemn the prosecution of criminal cases to a state of paralysis.”” Avellino, 136 F.3d at 255 (quoting United States v. Gambino, 835 F. Supp. 74, 95 (E.D.N.Y. 1993)). Thus, discovery and disclosure obligations only extend to “information known ' The Government recognizes that its Brady obligations include the disclosure of witness statements containing exculpatory information. To date, the Government is not aware of any exculpatory material contained in any witness statements, but it will continued to review its files, including witness statements, for such material. If the Government becomes aware of any Brady material from any source, it will promptly disclose such material to the defense. DOJ-OGR-00001788