EFTA00027307.pdf

Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 1 of 34 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 19 Cr. 830 (AT) TOVA NOEL and MICHAEL THOMAS, : Defendants. x MEMORANDUM OF LAW OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT MICHAEL THOMAS'S MOTION TO COMPEL GEOFFREY S. BERMAN United States Attorney Southern District of New York Assistant United States Attorneys - Of Counsel - EFTA00027307 Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 2 of 34 TABLE OF CONTENTS PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1 STATEMENT OF FACTS 2 I. The Indictment 2 II. Pretrial Discovery and the Defendant's Request for Additional Materials 3 A. The Government's Discovery Production 3 B. Defense Requests for Additional Discovery Materials 4 ARGUMENT 7 I. Applicable Law 7 A. Brady & Giglio 7 B. Rule 16 8 II. Thomas is Not Entitled to Additional Materials 8 A. The Government Has Satisfied its Discovery and Disclosure Obligations 8 B. The Requested Records Are Not "Material" to Preparing a Defense and Are Sought for the Impermissible Purpose of Jury Nullification 10 I.Applicable Law 10 2.Discussion 12 C. The Government is Not Required to Collect Materials From Agencies Who Were Not Part of the Prosecution Team 15 I.Applicable Law 16 2.Discussion 19 D. Any Draft Inspector General Report is Not Subject to Disclosure 21 E. Thomas Has Not Carried His Burden With Respect to Discovery of Material in Support of a Selective Prosecution Claim 24 I.Applicable Law 24 2.Discussion 26 CONCLUSION 29 EFTA00027308 Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 3 of 34 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 27 passim Cases Amnesty Int'l USA v. CIA, 728 F. Supp. 2d 479 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) Color of Change v. United States Dep't of Homeland Sec., 325 F. Supp. 3d 447 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) 27 Dept of Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Ass'n, 532 U.S. 1 (2001) 26, 27 Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729 (D.C. Cir. 1997) passim 26 In re Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in E. Africa, 552 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2008) 15 Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) 19 N.L.R.B. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132 (1975) 26 Nat'l Res. Del Council v. United States Ening. Prot. Agency, 954 F.3d 150 (2d Cir. 2020) 26 Standefer v. United States, 447 U.S. 10 (1980) 13 United States v. Alameh, 341 F.3d 167 (2d Cir. 2003) 29, 30, 31 United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, (1996) passim United States v. Avellino, 136 F.3d 249 (2d Cir. 1998) 19, 25 United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) 7 United States v. Barcelo, 628 F. App'x 36 (2d Cir. 2015) 19 United States v. Bass, 536 U.S. 862 (2002) 30, 33 United States v. Berrios, 501 F.2d 1207 (2d Cir. 1974) 30, 31 United States v. Blaszczak, 308 F. Supp. 3d 736 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) 20 United States v. Bryan, 868 F.2d 1032 (9th Cir. 1989) 24 United States v. Carr, 424 F.3d 213 (2d Cir. 2005) 12 United States v. Collins, 409 F. Supp. 3d 228 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) 20 ii EFTA00027309 Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 4 of 34 United States v. Coppa, 267 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2001) United States v. Defritas, No. 07 Cr. 543 (DLI), 2011 WL 317964, at *10 (E.D.N.Y. 7, 8 Jan. 31, 2011) 12, 17 United States v. Delacruz, No. 14 Cr. 815 (KBF), 2015 WL 2211943, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. May 12, 2015) 16 United States v. Edwards, 101 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 1996) 13 United States v. Fares, 978 F.2d 52 (2d Cir. 1992) 30, 31, 33 United States v. Fernandez, 231 F.3d 1240 (9th Cir. 2000) 26 United States v. Finnerty, 411 F. Supp. 2d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) 20 United States v. Floyd, No. 99 Cr. 0234 (DAB), 1999 WL 476438, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 1999) 16 United States v. Frank, 8 F. Supp. 2d 253 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) 26 United States v. George, 786 F. Supp. 56 (D.D.C. 1992) 15 United States v. Ghailani, 687 F. Supp. 2d 365 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) 21 United States v. Gibbons, 602 F.2d 1044 (2d Cir. 1979) 16 United States v. Gonzalez, No. 19 Cr. 123-2 (NRB), 2020 WL 1809293, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 9, 2020) 10 United States v. LeRoy, 687 F.2d 610 (2d Cir. 1982) 7 United States v. Levin, No. 15 Cr. 101 (KBF), 2016 WL 2990831, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2016) 13, 16 United States v. Lewis, 35 F.3d 148 (4th Cir. 1994) 28 United States v. Lewis, 517 F.3d 20 (1st Cir. 2008) 32 United States v. Libby, 429 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2006) 24 United States v. Manzano, 945 F.3d 616 (2d Cir. 2019) 13, 17 United States v. McGuinness, 764 F. Supp. 888 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) 11 United States v. Middendotf, No. 18 Cr. 36 (JPO), 2018 WL 3956494, at *4-5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2018) 20, 22 United States v. Moon, 718 F.2d 1210 (2d Cir. 1983) 30, 33 iii EFTA00027310 Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 5 of 34 United States v. Payne, 63 F.3d 1200 (2d Cir. 1995) United States v. Pelull°, 399 F.3d 197 (3d Cir. 2005) United States v. Perez, 940 F. Supp. 540 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) United States v. Persico, 645 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2011) 8 21 10 8 United States v. Reese, 933 F. Supp. 2d 579 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) 13, 16 United States v. Rigas, 258 F. Supp. 2d 299 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) 11, 12 United States v. Rigas, 583 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2009) 20 United States v. Rosado, 728 F.2d 89 (2d Cir. 1984) 17 United States v. Rosenfield, 469 F.2d 598 (3d Cir. 1972) 15 United States v. Ruggiero, 472 F.2d 599 (2d Cir. 1973) 7 United States v. Sanders, 17 F. Supp. 2d 141 (E.D.N.Y. 1998) 29 United States v. Southland Corp., 760 F.2d 1366 (2d Cir. 1985) 15 United States v. Stein, 424 F. Supp. 2d 720 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) 21 United States v. Stevens, 985 F.2d 1175 (2d Cir. 1993) 9, 12 United States v. Thomas, 116 F.3d 606 (2d Cir. 1997) 12 United States v. Undenvood, No. 04 Cr. 424 (RWS), 2005 WL 927012, at *I (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2005) 10 United States v. Upton, 856 F. Supp. 727 (E.D.N.Y. 1994) 21 United States v. Volpe, 42 F. Supp. 2d 204 (E.D.N.Y. 1999) 24 United States v. Washington, 705 F.2d 489 (D.C. Cir. 1983) 14, 15 United States v. White, 972 F.2d 16 (2d Cir. 1992) 33 United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2003) 19 iv EFTA00027311 Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 6 of 34 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The Government respectfully submits this memorandum of law in opposition to defendant Michael Thomas's motion to compel discovery. (Dkt. No. 33) ("Mot."). Thomas seeks an order compelling the Government to collect materials that are not in its possession, not discoverable under any legal basis, and not related to any legally cognizable defense. Thomas's motion is entirely without merit and should be denied.' Thomas concedes that the Government has produced a "multitude" of discovery directly relevant to the charges against him. (Mot. 6). Nonetheless, he seeks an order compelling the Government to collect and produce additional materials that he believes would support his purported defenses, namely, that he committed the offenses because of staffing issues and supervisory lapses, and that he was singled out for prosecution. Specifically, Thomas seeks: (i) a copy of a report being prepared by the Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General ("DOJ-OIG"), which does not yet exist and would principally be based on the same primary materials that the Government produced to Thomas in December 2019 (Mot. 5, 8-9); (ii) reports and documents prepared by the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") and other agencies who were not and are not members of the prosecution team (Mot. 6-7); (iii) reports and documents related to "any and all [Metropolitan Correctional Center ("MCC")] employees" who have engaged in "the same or similar conduct," including an incident in "2005 or 2006" where officers failed to conduct counts or rounds and an inmate committed suicide (Mot. 6); and (iv) reports, statistics, and documents related to purported s