{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "3",
    "document_number": "3220",
    "date": "August 18, 2021",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case#: 2020-cr-00080-PAE Document#: 3220 Filed#: 08/18/2021 Page#: 3 of 4\nHonorable Alison J. Nathan\nAugust 18, 2021\nPage 3\nwitness statements in Jencks Act material and a proposed exhibit list seven weeks before trial—\nbefore motions in limine are due, and earlier than is typical in this district even in complex cases.\nFinally, given the nature of the conspiracy, the defendant is likely already aware of the identities\nof persons who could be considered to be co-conspirators. See United States v. Ray, No. 20 Cr.\n110 (LJL), 2021 WL 3168250, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. July 27, 2021) (“This is not a case where a\ndefendant is likely to be surprised by the identity of co-conspirators, whom he may never have\nmet.”) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted)).\nBy contrast, requiring the Government to identify a complete list of co-conspirators risks\n“harm to the Government from restricting its proof at trial.” (Dkt. No. 317 at 11 (citing United\nStates v. Rajaratnam, No. 09 Cr. 1184 (RJH), 2010 WL 2788168, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 13, 2010)).\nOrdering the Government to provide a bill of particulars containing an exhaustive list of the\ndefendant’s uncharged co-conspirators when Jencks Act material is produced would require the\nGovernment to commit to a particular view of those co-conspirators and provide that preview of\nthe Government’s case to the defense seven weeks before trial. See Rajaratnam, 2010 WL\n2788168, at *1 (“[A] bill of particulars confines the government’s evidence at trial to the\nparticulars furnished.”) (internal quotation marks omitted)). That is far more than is required by\nRule 7(f). A defendant is “not entitled to a bill of particulars setting forth the ‘whens,’ ‘wheres,’\nand ‘with whoms’ regarding a conspiracy.” Ray, 2021 WL 3168250, at *6 (alteration and internal\nquotation marks omitted) (collecting cases).²\n² The cases the defendant cites are inapposite. (Dkt. No. 291 at 11). See United States v. Bin\nLaden, 92 F. Supp. 2d 225, 241 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (ordering the Government to identify alleged co-\nconspirators in a case that involved “at least 20” co-conspirators, many of whom used “several\naliases and/or code names to conceal their identities,” so it was difficult for defense counsel to\n“decipher the identities of alleged co-conspirators”); United States v. Pinto-Thomaz, 352 F. Supp.\n3d 287, 303 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (ordering the Government to confirm its representation that there\nDOJ-OGR-00005003",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case#: 2020-cr-00080-PAE Document#: 3220 Filed#: 08/18/2021 Page#: 3 of 4\nHonorable Alison J. Nathan\nAugust 18, 2021\nPage 3",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "witness statements in Jencks Act material and a proposed exhibit list seven weeks before trial—\nbefore motions in limine are due, and earlier than is typical in this district even in complex cases.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Finally, given the nature of the conspiracy, the defendant is likely already aware of the identities\nof persons who could be considered to be co-conspirators. See United States v. Ray, No. 20 Cr.\n110 (LJL), 2021 WL 3168250, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. July 27, 2021) (“This is not a case where a\ndefendant is likely to be surprised by the identity of co-conspirators, whom he may never have\nmet.”) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted)).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "By contrast, requiring the Government to identify a complete list of co-conspirators risks\n“harm to the Government from restricting its proof at trial.” (Dkt. No. 317 at 11 (citing United\nStates v. Rajaratnam, No. 09 Cr. 1184 (RJH), 2010 WL 2788168, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 13, 2010)).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Ordering the Government to provide a bill of particulars containing an exhaustive list of the\ndefendant’s uncharged co-conspirators when Jencks Act material is produced would require the\nGovernment to commit to a particular view of those co-conspirators and provide that preview of\nthe Government’s case to the defense seven weeks before trial. See Rajaratnam, 2010 WL\n2788168, at *1 (“[A] bill of particulars confines the government’s evidence at trial to the\nparticulars furnished.”) (internal quotation marks omitted)). That is far more than is required by\nRule 7(f). A defendant is “not entitled to a bill of particulars setting forth the ‘whens,’ ‘wheres,’\nand ‘with whoms’ regarding a conspiracy.” Ray, 2021 WL 3168250, at *6 (alteration and internal\nquotation marks omitted) (collecting cases).²",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "² The cases the defendant cites are inapposite. (Dkt. No. 291 at 11). See United States v. Bin\nLaden, 92 F. Supp. 2d 225, 241 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (ordering the Government to identify alleged co-\nconspirators in a case that involved “at least 20” co-conspirators, many of whom used “several\naliases and/or code names to conceal their identities,” so it was difficult for defense counsel to\n“decipher the identities of alleged co-conspirators”); United States v. Pinto-Thomaz, 352 F. Supp.\n3d 287, 303 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (ordering the Government to confirm its representation that there",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00005003",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Ray",
      "Rajaratnam",
      "Bin Laden",
      "Pinto-Thomaz"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "August 18, 2021",
      "July 27, 2021",
      "July 13, 2010",
      "2000",
      "2018"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "2020-cr-00080-PAE",
      "3220",
      "20 Cr. 110 (LJL)",
      "09 Cr. 1184 (RJH)",
      "Dkt. No. 317",
      "Dkt. No. 291"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten content or stamps visible. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}