DOJ-OGR-00007400.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 487 Filed 11/22/21 Page8sof8 Page 8 rule as a discovery device.” United States v. Cuthbertson, 630 F.2d 139, 144 (3d Cir. 1980); see Ulbricht, 858 F.3d at 109. Such an expedition is precluded by Nixon. 418 U.S. at 700. Il. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the Court should quash the defendant’s subpoena.’ Respectfully submitted, DAMIAN WILLIAMS United States Attorney by: /s/ Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lara Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys (212) 637-2324 ee: Counsel of Record (by email) TTn the event the Court does not quash the subpoena, the Government notes that it is returnable to the Court for in camera review. (Def. Mot. at 1). To the extent the Court releases any records from the EVCP to the defendant, it should only release those records that comply with the Nixon standard. See Skelos, 2018 WL 2254538, at *2 (“To avoid delay in trial, courts sometimes require production of impeaching material to the court (but not to counsel), with the court reviewing these documents in camera and then disclosing any admissible documents only after the witness testifies.”). For instance, if the Court identifies a prior inconsistent statement in only one document, no other records should be released to the defendant. And, in addition to evaluating whether any statement is relevant to show bias or as a prior inconsistent statement, the Court should consider whether it is precluded under Rule 403, for the reasons described above. See supra pp. 6-7. DOJ-OGR-00007400