{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "3",
    "document_number": "63",
    "date": "October 7, 2020",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 63 Filed 10/07/20 Page 3 of 8\n\nHonorable Alison J. Nathan\nOctober 7, 2020\nPage 3\n\nto persons who are a part of the 'prosecution team' . . . who perform investigative duties or make strategic decisions about the prosecution of the case,\" including \"police officers and federal agents who submit to the direction of the prosecutor and participate in the investigation.\" United States v. Barcelo, 628 F. App'x 36, 38 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273, 298 (2d Cir. 2006)).\n\nIn considering whether Rule 16 and Brady apply to records in the possession of another government agency, a prosecutor's duty extends to reviewing such evidence only where the Government conducts a \"joint investigation\" with that agency or branch of government. See United States v. Middendorf, No. 18 Cr. 36 (JPO), 2018 WL 3956494, at *4-5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2018) (no joint investigation between Government, Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (\"PCAOB\") and Securities and Exchange Commission (\"SEC\") where PCAOB was not involved in witness interviews or developing prosecutorial strategy, and SEC was not involved in the grand jury presentation, reviewing the fruits of the Government's investigation, or developing prosecutorial strategy); United States v. Collins, 409 F. Supp. 3d 228, 241-43 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (no joint investigation between U.S. Attorney's Office and SEC where the two entities conducted a small number of joint interviews and engaged in limited sharing of information with each other); United States v. Finnerty, 411 F. Supp. 2d 428, 433 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (no joint investigation between Government and New York Stock Exchange (\"NYSE\") where documents sought were \"the product of an investigation that was undertaken by the NYSE of its own practices, and there [wa]s no suggestion that the Government participated in that investigation\").\n\nMoreover, the involvement of agents from one component of an agency in an investigation does not render the entirety of that agency part of the prosecution team. See, e.g., United States v. Stein, 424 F. Supp. 2d 720, 723 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (\"While the prosecution's disclosure obligation in some circumstances may extend to materials beyond the knowledge of the individual prosecutors assigned to a case, it does not extend to the collective knowledge of the entire United States government or even to the entire government agency concerned.\"); see also Locascio, 6 F.3d at 949 (refusing to impute to AUSAs knowledge of reports prepared by FBI agents who were \"uninvolved in the investigation or trial of the defendants\"); cf. United States v. Ghailani, 687 F. Supp. 2d 365, 372 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (holding that, in the context of a speedy trial motion, other members of the Department of Justice who were involved in making decisions about timing and progress of the case were part of the \"government\" for Rule 16 purposes).\n\nAs the foregoing precedents recognize, the factors relevant in determining whether an agency or a component of an agency are part of the prosecution team, and therefore their records are in the \"possession\" of the Government include whether the agency or component: \"(1) participated in the prosecution's witness interviews, (2) was involved in presenting the case to the grand jury, (3) reviewed documents gathered by or shared documents with the prosecution, (4) played a role in the development of prosecutorial strategy, or (5) accompanied the prosecution to court proceedings.\" Middendorf, 2018 WL 3956494, at *4.\n\nDOJ-OGR-00001789",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 63 Filed 10/07/20 Page 3 of 8",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nOctober 7, 2020\nPage 3",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "to persons who are a part of the 'prosecution team' . . . who perform investigative duties or make strategic decisions about the prosecution of the case, including \"police officers and federal agents who submit to the direction of the prosecutor and participate in the investigation.\" United States v. Barcelo, 628 F. App'x 36, 38 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273, 298 (2d Cir. 2006)).",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In considering whether Rule 16 and Brady apply to records in the possession of another government agency, a prosecutor's duty extends to reviewing such evidence only where the Government conducts a \"joint investigation\" with that agency or branch of government. See United States v. Middendorf, No. 18 Cr. 36 (JPO), 2018 WL 3956494, at *4-5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2018) (no joint investigation between Government, Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (\"PCAOB\") and Securities and Exchange Commission (\"SEC\") where PCAOB was not involved in witness interviews or developing prosecutorial strategy, and SEC was not involved in the grand jury presentation, reviewing the fruits of the Government's investigation, or developing prosecutorial strategy); United States v. Collins, 409 F. Supp. 3d 228, 241-43 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (no joint investigation between U.S. Attorney's Office and SEC where the two entities conducted a small number of joint interviews and engaged in limited sharing of information with each other); United States v. Finnerty, 411 F. Supp. 2d 428, 433 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (no joint investigation between Government and New York Stock Exchange (\"NYSE\") where documents sought were \"the product of an investigation that was undertaken by the NYSE of its own practices, and there [wa]s no suggestion that the Government participated in that investigation\").",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Moreover, the involvement of agents from one component of an agency in an investigation does not render the entirety of that agency part of the prosecution team. See, e.g., United States v. Stein, 424 F. Supp. 2d 720, 723 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (\"While the prosecution's disclosure obligation in some circumstances may extend to materials beyond the knowledge of the individual prosecutors assigned to a case, it does not extend to the collective knowledge of the entire United States government or even to the entire government agency concerned.\"); see also Locascio, 6 F.3d at 949 (refusing to impute to AUSAs knowledge of reports prepared by FBI agents who were \"uninvolved in the investigation or trial of the defendants\"); cf. United States v. Ghailani, 687 F. Supp. 2d 365, 372 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (holding that, in the context of a speedy trial motion, other members of the Department of Justice who were involved in making decisions about timing and progress of the case were part of the \"government\" for Rule 16 purposes).",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "As the foregoing precedents recognize, the factors relevant in determining whether an agency or a component of an agency are part of the prosecution team, and therefore their records are in the \"possession\" of the Government include whether the agency or component: \"(1) participated in the prosecution's witness interviews, (2) was involved in presenting the case to the grand jury, (3) reviewed documents gathered by or shared documents with the prosecution, (4) played a role in the development of prosecutorial strategy, or (5) accompanied the prosecution to court proceedings.\" Middendorf, 2018 WL 3956494, at *4.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00001789",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Alison J. Nathan"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Department of Justice",
      "Public Company Accounting Oversight Board",
      "Securities and Exchange Commission",
      "New York Stock Exchange",
      "FBI"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "October 7, 2020",
      "Aug. 17, 2018"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 63",
      "No. 18 Cr. 36 (JPO)",
      "2018 WL 3956494",
      "DOJ-OGR-00001789"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 3 of 8."
}