DOJ-OGR-00022102.jpg

Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document36 Filed 06/09/20 Page6éof9 it has already delivered to Thomas all of the materials gathered by OIG personnel in the course of investigating this case, and that “it is the prosecution’s understanding that [OIG] attorneys have not conducted any additional interviews or otherwise discovered any potential Brady material.” Jd. at 23-24. Thomas has not identified any specific material that might be in OIG’s possession that has not been disclosed. The Court, therefore, has no basis to compel the Government to disclose additional evidence underlying the Inspector General’s report. “[C]ourts in this circuit have repeatedly denied requests for discovery orders where the [G]overnment represents that it has produced discovery to defendants pursuant to Rule 16 and has made a good faith representation to the defense that it recognizes and has complied with its obligations under Brady and its progeny.” United States v. Garcia-Pena, No. 17 Cr. 363, 2018 WL 6985220, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2018) (internal quotation marks, citation, and alterations omitted); see also, e.g., United States v. Blondet, No. 16 Cr. 387, 2019 WL 5690711, at *5 (‘[T]o the extent that these motions seek evidence pursuant to Brady [], Giglio [], and their progeny, they are [denied] on the basis of the Government’s good-faith representation that it has complied with its obligations and will continue to do so.” (citations omitted)); United States v. Goode, No. 16 Cr. 529, 2018 WL 919928, at *18 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 15, 2018) (“The Government represents that it has complied with Rule 16 obligations; the Rule 16 requests are therefore moot.” (citation omitted)). As for the draft Inspector General’s report itself, the Government reports that “attorneys from [OIG] responsible for writing the [r]eport have not yet completed a draft, and do not anticipate completing the [r]eport in the near term,” and so “there are no drafts of the [r]eport to DOJ-OGR- 00022102