DOJ-OGR-00022088.jpg
751 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
7
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
751 KB
Summary
This legal document is a portion of a government filing arguing against a defendant's (Thomas) motion for discovery. The government contends that searching for certain records from the BOP, CIA, and Vice President's office would be an undue burden and that a draft Inspector General report is not subject to disclosure because it is not material to the defense and is protected by deliberative process privilege. The government states the report is not yet complete and the prosecution team has no involvement in its creation.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Thomas |
A party in the legal case who is arguing for the production of an Inspector General report and whose motion is being ...
|
|
| Avellino |
Mentioned in a case citation (Avellino, 136 F.3d at 255) as a warning against actions that would paralyze criminal pr...
|
|
| Brady |
Mentioned in the context of legal requirements for disclosure (Brady rule).
|
|
| Giglio |
Mentioned in the context of legal requirements for disclosure (Giglio rule).
|
Organizations (7)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Office of the Vice President | Government agency |
Mentioned as a source of records that prosecutors were required to obtain in a previous case.
|
| Central Intelligence Agency | Government agency |
Mentioned as a source of records that prosecutors were required to obtain in a previous case.
|
| BOP | Government agency |
Bureau of Prisons; the document discusses the burden of canvassing its records and a report on systemic issues within...
|
| Government | Government agency |
Refers to the prosecution in the legal case, arguing against the disclosure of certain records.
|
| Inspector General | Government agency |
The office responsible for a report that Thomas argues must be produced.
|
| MCC | Government facility |
Mentioned in relation to purported staffing shortages that a report might address. Likely the Metropolitan Correction...
|
| DOJ-OIG | Government agency |
Department of Justice - Office of the Inspector General; attorneys from this office are responsible for writing the I...
|
Timeline (2 events)
Thomas's motion for the production of an Inspector General report is being argued against and recommended for denial.
A grand jury investigation is mentioned in the context of a past case where government bodies not involved in the investigation were still required to produce records.
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
District of Columbia; mentioned in a 2006 case citation.
|
Relationships (2)
The document details the Government's arguments against a motion filed by Thomas, indicating they are opposing parties in a legal proceeding.
The document states that the prosecution team has had no involvement in the writing of the Inspector General Report being prepared by attorneys from DOJ-OIG, showing a separation of duties within the government.
Key Quotes (1)
"condemn the prosecution of criminal cases to a state of paralysis."Source
— The Circuit (court)
(Quoted from the Avellino case as a warning against imposing overly burdensome discovery requirements on the government.)
DOJ-OGR-00022088.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,237 characters)
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 26 of 34
2d 1, 9 (D.D.C. 2006), required the prosecutors to obtain records from the Office of the Vice President and the Central Intelligence Agency, even though those parts of government did not participate in the grand jury investigation, that holding was an outlier, which has never been cited by another court, and the decision itself has never been cited in this Circuit.
Finally, even if such materials had any conceivable relevance to the charges at hand (which, as discussed above, they do not), asking the Government to conduct a broad canvassing of the BOP’s records—including searching databases located out of state, reviewing large quantities of documents, attempting to pull archived records going back as far as 2005, and parsing through attorney work product—would be inordinately time consuming and burdensome for attorneys for the Government, which does not have custody of the files, is not familiar with the files, and knows of no effective way to search them. It would, as the Circuit warned against in Avellino, “condemn the prosecution of criminal cases to a state of paralysis.” 136 F.3d at 255. Such a result is not legally required by Rule 16, Brady, or Giglio, and therefore Thomas’s motion should be denied.
D. Any Draft Inspector General Report is Not Subject to Disclosure
Thomas argues that any report by the Inspector General and related materials must be produced because he speculates that such a report will address systemic issues at the BOP, including purported staffing shortages at the MCC. (Mot. 5, 9-10). For the reasons set forth above, any draft Inspector General Report is not discoverable because the issues Thomas believes it will discuss are not material to the preparation of a valid defense, see Part II.B, and the draft reports, to the extent they exist, are protected from disclosure by the deliberative process privilege. While the prosecution team has had no involvement in writing the Inspector General Report, the Government understands that those attorneys from DOJ-OIG responsible for writing the Report have not yet completed a draft, and do not anticipate completing the Report in the near term. As
21
DOJ-OGR-00022088
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document