DOJ-OGR-00001814.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 67 Filed 10/30/20 Page 3 of 4 Page 3 recent New York investigation as part of the Prosecution Team’s files, and stated as much at the initial pretrial conference and in its October 7, 2020 letter. Because the Palm Beach Police Department files were incorporated into the Florida FBI files and were so at the time of charging, they are also part of the Prosecution Team’s files. Thus, far from trying to “distance itself from its own files” (Def. Ltr. 5), the Government has thoroughly reviewed those files for Rule 16 material and potential Brady material, has made discovery productions from those files beginning in August through this month, and is continuing to make productions from those files. By contrast, and as explained more fully in the Government’s October 7 letter, this Prosecution Team—which played no role in the Florida Investigation—had not, prior to August 2020, received the materials identified in that letter from other prosecutor’s offices. The Government has now obtained those materials not because they constitute Rule 16 discovery, but rather because the Government is prepared to go above and beyond its obligations in an effort to identify any arguable 3500 or Giglio material for Government witnesses in this case, or any Brady material held in the files of those other offices. The Government is in the process of reviewing those materials, as set forth in its October 7 letter, and to the extent the Government identifies material within those files that constitutes Giglio or Jencks Act material, it will produce any such material in advance of trial consistent with any agreed upon or ordered schedule for pretrial disclosures. If the Government identifies potential Brady material within those files, the Government will promptly produce it to the defense. In sum, through its October 7 letter, the Government sought to be transparent about the files it has been collecting and reviewing from other offices for disclosures in this case. The Government fully intends to discharge its obligations carefully, thoughtfully, and thoroughly, and will continue to make itself available to confer with defense counsel regarding discovery. 2. The Government Has Made Considerable Efforts to Address Concerns and Complaints Raised by Defense Counsel Regarding the MDC The Defense Letter raises two complaints that the Government has gone to significant lengths to address over the past several weeks. First, the defense complains about technical issues the defendant has experienced in reviewing discovery at the MDC. (Def. Ltr. 6-7). The Government has worked expeditiously and continuously to provide the defendant with discovery that is reviewable at MDC. In that vein, the Government has repeatedly spoken with MDC legal counsel regarding these issues, and is continuing to work with MDC legal counsel and its own IT staff to ensure that the defendant is able to review all of her discovery, including the subset of files 4 The suggestion to the contrary in the first sentence of the Defense Letter is similarly misleading. (Def. Ltr. 1). At the initial conference, the Government explained that discovery in this case would come, in part, from “prior investigative files from another investigation in the Southern District of Florida,” (July 14, 2020 Tr. at 12), and Government counsel clarified, “the files in particular that I am referring to are the files in the possession of the F.B.I. in Florida in connection with the previous investigation of Jeffrey Epstein.” (/d. at 14). Consistent with that representation, the Government’s October 7, 2020 letter noted that the Prosecution Team has reviewed and made discovery productions from those same Florida FBI files. (Dkt. 63 at 5, 6). DOJ-OGR-00001814