DOJ-OGR-00022102.jpg
684 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing / legal order (page 6 of 9)
File Size:
684 KB
Summary
This document is page 6 of a court filing from June 9, 2020, in the case against Thomas (likely regarding Epstein's guards). The Court denies the defendant's request to compel the Government to disclose evidence underlying an Office of Inspector General (OIG) report, accepting the Government's representation that no additional Brady material exists and that the OIG report is not yet drafted. The text cites various legal precedents regarding Rule 16 and Brady obligations.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Thomas | Defendant |
Party seeking discovery materials from the OIG investigation; likely Michael Thomas (correctional officer).
|
| OIG Attorneys | Investigators |
Personnel from the Office of Inspector General investigating the case and writing a report.
|
| Garcia-Pena | Cited Case Defendant |
Referenced in case law citation United States v. Garcia-Pena.
|
| Blondet | Cited Case Defendant |
Referenced in case law citation United States v. Blondet.
|
| Goode | Cited Case Defendant |
Referenced in case law citation United States v. Goode.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| OIG |
Office of Inspector General; conducting an investigation related to the case.
|
|
| The Government |
Prosecution; responding to defense requests for discovery.
|
|
| The Court |
Judicial body issuing the decision/opinion.
|
|
| S.D.N.Y. |
Southern District of New York; jurisdiction mentioned in citations.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2020-06-09
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Southern District of New York (mentioned in legal citations)
|
Relationships (2)
Thomas is requesting discovery/materials; Government is opposing or stating compliance.
Government reports on the status of OIG's investigation and report drafting.
Key Quotes (4)
"it is the prosecution’s understanding that [OIG] attorneys have not conducted any additional interviews or otherwise discovered any potential Brady material."Source
DOJ-OGR-00022102.jpg
Quote #1
"Thomas has not identified any specific material that might be in OIG’s possession that has not been disclosed."Source
DOJ-OGR-00022102.jpg
Quote #2
"The Court, therefore, has no basis to compel the Government to disclose additional evidence underlying the Inspector General’s report."Source
DOJ-OGR-00022102.jpg
Quote #3
"attorneys from [OIG] responsible for writing the [r]eport have not yet completed a draft, and do not anticipate completing the [r]eport in the near term"Source
DOJ-OGR-00022102.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,978 characters)
Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 36 Filed 06/09/20 Page 6 of 9
it has already delivered to Thomas all of the materials gathered by OIG personnel in the course
of investigating this case, and that “it is the prosecution’s understanding that [OIG] attorneys
have not conducted any additional interviews or otherwise discovered any potential Brady
material.” Id. at 23–24. Thomas has not identified any specific material that might be in OIG’s
possession that has not been disclosed.
of investigating this case, and that “it is the prosecution’s understanding that [OIG] attorneys
have not conducted any additional interviews or otherwise discovered any potential Brady
material.” Id. at 23–24. Thomas has not identified any specific material that might be in OIG’s
possession that has not been disclosed.
The Court, therefore, has no basis to compel the Government to disclose additional
evidence underlying the Inspector General’s report. “[C]ourts in this circuit have repeatedly
denied requests for discovery orders where the [G]overnment represents that it has produced
discovery to defendants pursuant to Rule 16 and has made a good faith representation to the
defense that it recognizes and has complied with its obligations under Brady and its progeny.”
United States v. Garcia-Pena, No. 17 Cr. 363, 2018 WL 6985220, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19,
2018) (internal quotation marks, citation, and alterations omitted); see also, e.g., United States v.
Blondet, No. 16 Cr. 387, 2019 WL 5690711, at *5 (“[T]o the extent that these motions seek
evidence pursuant to Brady [], Giglio [], and their progeny, they are [denied] on the basis of the
Government’s good-faith representation that it has complied with its obligations and will
continue to do so.” (citations omitted)); United States v. Goode, No. 16 Cr. 529, 2018 WL
919928, at *18 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 15, 2018) (“The Government represents that it has complied with
Rule 16 obligations; the Rule 16 requests are therefore moot.” (citation omitted)).
evidence underlying the Inspector General’s report. “[C]ourts in this circuit have repeatedly
denied requests for discovery orders where the [G]overnment represents that it has produced
discovery to defendants pursuant to Rule 16 and has made a good faith representation to the
defense that it recognizes and has complied with its obligations under Brady and its progeny.”
United States v. Garcia-Pena, No. 17 Cr. 363, 2018 WL 6985220, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19,
2018) (internal quotation marks, citation, and alterations omitted); see also, e.g., United States v.
Blondet, No. 16 Cr. 387, 2019 WL 5690711, at *5 (“[T]o the extent that these motions seek
evidence pursuant to Brady [], Giglio [], and their progeny, they are [denied] on the basis of the
Government’s good-faith representation that it has complied with its obligations and will
continue to do so.” (citations omitted)); United States v. Goode, No. 16 Cr. 529, 2018 WL
919928, at *18 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 15, 2018) (“The Government represents that it has complied with
Rule 16 obligations; the Rule 16 requests are therefore moot.” (citation omitted)).
As for the draft Inspector General’s report itself, the Government reports that “attorneys
from [OIG] responsible for writing the [r]eport have not yet completed a draft, and do not
anticipate completing the [r]eport in the near term,” and so “there are no drafts of the [r]eport to
from [OIG] responsible for writing the [r]eport have not yet completed a draft, and do not
anticipate completing the [r]eport in the near term,” and so “there are no drafts of the [r]eport to
6
DOJ-OGR-00022102
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document