DOJ-OGR-00001813.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 67 Filed 10/30/20 Page 2 of 4

Page 2

its outside vendor to image, stamp, and download that electronic discovery, which the Government finished preparing for production last week, from an electronic database. The volume of that production is large and takes significant time for the vendor to prepare. It is therefore possible that the vendor may need a limited amount of additional time to complete that process. That said, the Government has repeatedly informed the vendor of the November 9, 2020 deadline, and the vendor is making every effort to meet it. The Government expects an update from the vendor early next week and will promptly alert the Court and the defense if it appears the vendor will need additional time beyond November 9 to finalize this production. But contrary to the defense’s suggestion, the Government has made numerous productions consistent with the discovery schedule in this case and is working diligently to continue to meet the discovery deadlines in this case.

With respect to the defense’s other claims and accusations, the Government is prepared to respond in detail at the appropriate stage. But in short, many of the defense’s accusations about the Government’s allegedly deficient productions are not only factually or legally incorrect, but also include complaints that the Court has already directed the defense to renew only if unable to reach agreement with the Government “[f]ollowing the close of discovery,” which has not yet occurred. (Order dated Aug. 25, 2020, Dkt. 49, at 2). Others turn on the defense’s baseless attempts to redefine classic Giglio or Jencks Act material as Rule 16 discovery, or on a faulty definition of exculpatory material that has no basis in law. (See Gov. Ltr. dated Aug. 13, 2020, Dkt. No. 41, at 2-3 (noting law supporting delay of production of witness list until shortly before trial); Gov. Ltr. dated Oct. 7, 2020, Dkt. No. 63, at 2 (noting that Rule 16 does not require production of witness statements or Giglio); Gov. Ltr. dated Oct. 20, 2020, Dkt. No. 65, at 1-2 (noting well-established law in this Circuit precluding defense from offering evidence that a defendant did not participate in criminal conduct on a different occasion than that charged by the Government)).²

With respect to the Government’s October 7 letter regarding other agency files, the defense’s claims that the Government has “minimize[d]” what it promised and “redefine[d] who it believes is part of the Prosecution Team” are deeply misleading.³ (Def. Ltr. 4). To be clear, the Government has always viewed FBI files from both the prior Florida investigation and the more

______________________________________________________________________________

Government may identify additional discoverable materials after the deadline. Should that happen, the Government will promptly produce such materials to the defense.

² In addition to repeating previously made arguments, the defense now contends that evidence about the “genesis” of the non-prosecution agreement between the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida and Jeffrey Epstein, is exculpatory. (Def. Ltr. 4). The defense makes this assertion despite the fact that neither this Office nor the defendant were party to that agreement, the agreement covered conduct spanning a different period of time than that charged in this case, and the agreement does not mention the defendant by name. To the extent the defense nevertheless believes it is entitled to those materials, the appropriate forum to raise those arguments is on the pretrial motion schedule established by the Court.

³ It bears mention that at no point did the defense seek to confer with the Government regarding any concerns about the Government’s October 7 letter or the Government’s planned productions prior to filing the Defense Letter with the Court.

DOJ-OGR-00001813