DOJ-OGR-00004003.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 247 Filed 04/23/21 Page3of17 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan April 5, 2021 Page 3 of 17 discussion of corruption in amateur basketball; and (3) that took place within a thirty-nine month period” failed the specificity requirement, even though the request was limited by time, subject matter, and identified individuals. United States v. Avenatti, No. (S1) 19 CR. 373 (PGG), 2020 WL 86768, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2020) (holding that request “reads like a request under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure” and that “[b]lanket requests of this sort violate the specificity requirement set forth in Nixon”). Judge Gardephe similarly held that Mr. Avenatti’s request for “email and text message communications between Franklin and Auerbach that (1) mention Avenatti, and (2) were transmitted after Avenatti’s March 25, 2019 arrest” failed Nixon’s specificity requirement, even though that request was also limited by time, subject matter, and identified individuals. United States v. Avenatti, No. (S1) 19 CR. 373 (PGG), 2020 WL 508682, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2020). Thus, there mere fact that the Defendant’s requests here are tethered to a broad time period of five years and broad subject matters (the Defendant and yyy WE. for example) cannot save her Requests.” The Defendant attempts to distinguish these Requests from those that courts have characterized as improper “any and all” requests by pointing to the fact that the Requests do not literally contain the words “‘any” or “all.” Resp. Ltr. at 3. But this does not change the fact that 2 See also, e.g., Bergstein, 2018 WL 9539775, at *1 (finding that requests seeking “all communications between Parmar and Bergstein, Albert Hallac, Jeffrey Hallac, or Keith Wellner related to the negotiations of, documentation of, and performance or non-performance under three agreements governing the acquisition of the medical billing business described in the indictment” and “all communications between Parmar and any of the same four individuals related to payments, reimbursement, advances, or loans for Parmar’s direct or indirect benefit in connection with the same agreements” failed Nixon’s specificity requirement); United States v. Seabrook, No. 16-CR- 467, 2017 WL 4838311, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2017) (“Cooley Request 2 is quashed on specificity and admissibility grounds. Cooley Request 2 seeks documents concerning or comprising communications between Cooley and the Government relating to any of the allegations in the Indictment.”). DOJ-OGR-00004003