DOJ-OGR-00004996.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 320 Filed 08/18/21 Page3of4 Honorable Alison J. Nathan August 18, 2021 Page 3 witness statements in Jencks Act material and a proposed exhibit list seven weeks before trial— before motions in limine are due, and earlier than is typical in this district even in complex cases. Finally, given the nature of the conspiracy, the defendant is likely already aware of the identities of persons who could be considered to be co-conspirators. See United States v. Ray, No. 20 Cr. 110 (LJL), 2021 WL 3168250, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. July 27, 2021) (“This is not a case where a defendant is likely to be surprised by the identity of co-conspirators, whom he may never have met.” (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted)). By contrast, requiring the Government to identify a complete list of co-conspirators risks “harm to the Government from restricting its proof at trial.” (Dkt. No. 317 at 11 (citing United States v. Rajaratnam, No. 09 Cr. 1184 (RJH), 2010 WL 2788168, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 13, 2010)). Ordering the Government to provide a bill of particulars containing an exhaustive list of the defendant’s uncharged co-conspirators when Jencks Act material is produced would require the Government to commit to a particular view of those co-conspirators and provide that preview of the Government’s case to the defense seven weeks before trial. See Rajaratnam, 2010 WL 2788168, at *1 (“[A] bill of particulars confines the government’s evidence at trial to the particulars furnished.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). That is far more than is required by Rule 7(f). A defendant is “not entitled to a bill of particulars setting forth the ‘whens,’ ‘wheres,’ and ‘with whoms’ regarding a conspiracy.” Ray, 2021 WL 3168250, at *6 (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted) (collecting cases). * The cases the defendant cites are inapposite. (Dkt. No. 291 at 11). See United States v. Bin Laden, 92 F. Supp. 2d 225, 241 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (ordering the Government to identify alleged co- conspirators in a case that involved “at least 20” co-conspirators, many of whom used “several aliases and/or code names to conceal their identities,” so it was difficult for defense counsel to “decipher the identities of alleged co-conspirators”); United States v. Pinto-Thomaz, 352 F. Supp. 3d 287, 303 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (ordering the Government to confirm its representation that there DOJ-OGR-00004996