DOJ-OGR-00001820.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 69 Filed 11/06/20 Page 3 of 4 Page 3 first two conditions are reasonably related to the delayed production. The three-week extension of the defense’s deadline to file motions will ensure the defense has adequate time to review discovery before finalizing its motions and is therefore rationally related to the two-week delay in this production. Similarly, the requested laptop will expedite and streamline the defendant’s review of discovery by avoiding technological delays on the MDC computer system that may otherwise slow the defendant’s discovery review. By contrast, a two-week delay in the completion of discovery, caused by technical constraints on the part of an outside vendor, has no bearing on the defense’s entitlement to a witness list or witness statements. This Court has already ruled that such a request is premature when the “parties have not yet engaged in discussions regarding an appropriate schedule for pretrial disclosures, including witness lists and § 3500 material.” (Dkt. 49 at 1). The Court accordingly ordered that the parties ““meet and confer on an appropriate schedule” “[f]ollowing the close of discovery.” (/d. at 2). Consistent with that order, the Government is prepared to engage in good faith discussions with the defense about an appropriate schedule for disclosure of Jencks Act and Giglio material. The standard practice in this District is to produce such material shortly in advance of trial, a practice that has been widely held to be sufficient to satisfy the requirement that Giglio be produced “‘in sufficient time that the defendant will have a reasonable opportunity to act upon the information efficaciously.” United States v. Rodriguez, 496 F.3d 221, 226 (2d Cir. 2007). Immediate disclosure of such material is not warranted simply because the defendant prefers it. See, e.g., United States v. Wey, 15 Cr. 611 (AJN), 2017 WL 237651, at *23 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2017) (denying defendant’s motion for immediate disclosure of Giglio material as defendant “fails to articulate any persuasive reason why immediate disclosure is required in this case, and the Court otherwise sees no basis to deviate so substantially from the typical practice”); United States v. Thompson, 13 Cr. 378 (AJN), 2013 WL 62464839, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2013) (denying request for early production of Jencks Act material); United States v. Davis, No. 06 Cr. 911 (LBS), 2009 WL 637164, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. March 11, 2009) (“The Second Circuit has held that a request for immediate or early disclosure [of Giglio material] has no basis in the law.”). Because the Government’s two-week delay in completing discovery does not entitle the defense to such materials more than seven months in advance of trial, the Government respectfully requests that the Court extend the deadline for this production to November 23, 2020 solely on the first two conditions set out by the defense. Other than these responsive documents from Epstein’s electronic devices, the Government expects to complete its production of Rule 16 discovery to the defense by the November 9, 2020 deadline. In that vein, the Government is currently preparing its sixth discovery production to the defense, which will include, among other things, thousands of images and videos from Epstein’s electronic devices identified as responsive to the expanded warrant, portions of iPads and an iPhone seized from Epstein identified as responsive to the expanded warrant, the four emails quoted in the Government’s application for an expanded warrant, and documents from the FBI’s Florida files. The Government expects to make that sixth production to the defense on November 9, 2020. Moreover, while the Government appreciates that the volume of materials it proposes to produce after the deadline is large, the Government has no reason to believe these materials will be central to any motion the defendant may seek to make. In particular, as noted above, all of DOJ-OGR-00001820