DOJ-OGR-00004007.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 247 _ Filed 04/23/21 Page /7of17 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan April 5, 2021 Page 7 of 17 BSF, and her motion to dismiss for pre-indictment delay is based on the time that has passed between the time at which the Government first learned of the allegations against the Defendant and the Defendant’s indictment. ECF No. 134, 138, 140. The public versions of those filings do not mention J at all. Even the relevance of a// communications between BSF and the Government relating to the Defendant herself is dubious as it relates to these three motions. At base, it is not BSF’s burden to “to cull the good from the bad” among its communications about the Defendant and to determine what would relevant at trial or at an evidentiary hearing. See Bowman Dairy Co. v. United States, 341 U.S. 214, 220 (1951). Third, the Defendant has not even attempted to demonstrate that all of the evidence she seeks would be admissible. Although the lack of specificity in Requests 1 through 5 makes it impossible to meaningfully debate the admissibility of each piece of evidence she seeks, certainly many of the communications requested will constitute inadmissible hearsay. This is precisely the purpose of Mixon’s specificity requirement—to ensure that Rule 17 subpoenas are narrowly tailored to obtain only relevant and admissible evidence, not to obtain discovery in the hopes that something relevant and admissible might turn up, and to allow the recipient to lodge relevance and admissibility objections as to the precise documents being requested. See Avenatti, 2020 WL 508682, at *4 (“While the specificity requirement is intended to provide the subpoenaed party or other party having standing with enough knowledge about what documents are being requested so as to lodge any objections on relevancy or admissibility, this requirement also ensures that a Rule 17(c) subpoena will not be used as a fishing expedition to see what may turn up.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). The Defendant’s criticism of BSF for not meeting its “burden of justifying the application of the work product doctrine” is also due only to the Defendant’s overbroad and nonspecific DOJ-OGR-00004007