{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "86",
    "document_number": "204",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 86 of 239 manufactured any alleged delay to gain a tactical advantage over her. She has \"offered no credible evidence to suggest that the Government tarried in bringing charges against [her] solely to gain some prosecutorial advantage.\" Pierre-Louis, 2018 WL 4043140, at *5. As such, because the defendant cannot meet her \"heavy burden\" of showing both actual prejudice and unjustifiable Government conduct, her motion to dismiss the Indictment for pre-indictment delay should be denied.25 IV. The Court Should Deny the Defendant's Motions to Suppress The defendant moves to suppress evidence the Government obtained pursuant to a grand jury subpoena issued to Boies Schiller and to dismiss Counts Five and Six under the Due Process Clause, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, and the Second Circuit's decision in Martindell v. Int'l Tel. and Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979). (Def. Mot. 3 & 11). In particular, the defendant contends that the Government violated the Second Circuit's decision in Martindell and misled Chief Judge McMahon in obtaining the modification of a protective order. She also contends the subpoena was overly broad and amounted to an unlawful search of materials in which she had a reasonable expectation of privacy, as well as an infringement of her privilege against self-incrimination. Although the defendant styles her request for relief as two separate 25 The defendant asks the Court for leave to supplement her motion \"after the government provides her with meaningful discovery\" and notes that \"after the disclosure of meaningful discovery, [she] may request that the Court defer ruling on this motion until after any trial if the indictment has not been dismissed on other grounds.\" (Def. Mot. 7 at 1). As noted above and discussed further in Section X, infra, the Government has complied with its Rule 16 obligations and will produce Giglio and Jencks Act materials well in advance of trial. The Court should reject the defendant's invitation to defer ruling on this motion. See, e.g., United States v. Muric, No. 10 Cr. 112 (LTS), 2010 WL 2891178, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2010) (\"The motion to dismiss the Indictment as the result of pre-indictment delay is therefore denied, without prejudice to appropriately supported later motion practice.\"); United States v. Drago, No. 18 Cr. 0394 (SJF) (AYS), 2019 WL 3072288, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. July 15, 2019) (denying motion to dismiss on the ground of pre-indictment delay without prejudice to renewal). 59 DOJ-OGR-00003020",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 86 of 239",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "manufactured any alleged delay to gain a tactical advantage over her. She has \"offered no credible evidence to suggest that the Government tarried in bringing charges against [her] solely to gain some prosecutorial advantage.\" Pierre-Louis, 2018 WL 4043140, at *5. As such, because the defendant cannot meet her \"heavy burden\" of showing both actual prejudice and unjustifiable Government conduct, her motion to dismiss the Indictment for pre-indictment delay should be denied.25",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "IV. The Court Should Deny the Defendant's Motions to Suppress",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The defendant moves to suppress evidence the Government obtained pursuant to a grand jury subpoena issued to Boies Schiller and to dismiss Counts Five and Six under the Due Process Clause, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, and the Second Circuit's decision in Martindell v. Int'l Tel. and Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979). (Def. Mot. 3 & 11). In particular, the defendant contends that the Government violated the Second Circuit's decision in Martindell and misled Chief Judge McMahon in obtaining the modification of a protective order. She also contends the subpoena was overly broad and amounted to an unlawful search of materials in which she had a reasonable expectation of privacy, as well as an infringement of her privilege against self-incrimination. Although the defendant styles her request for relief as two separate",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "25 The defendant asks the Court for leave to supplement her motion \"after the government provides her with meaningful discovery\" and notes that \"after the disclosure of meaningful discovery, [she] may request that the Court defer ruling on this motion until after any trial if the indictment has not been dismissed on other grounds.\" (Def. Mot. 7 at 1). As noted above and discussed further in Section X, infra, the Government has complied with its Rule 16 obligations and will produce Giglio and Jencks Act materials well in advance of trial. The Court should reject the defendant's invitation to defer ruling on this motion. See, e.g., United States v. Muric, No. 10 Cr. 112 (LTS), 2010 WL 2891178, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2010) (\"The motion to dismiss the Indictment as the result of pre-indictment delay is therefore denied, without prejudice to appropriately supported later motion practice.\"); United States v. Drago, No. 18 Cr. 0394 (SJF) (AYS), 2019 WL 3072288, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. July 15, 2019) (denying motion to dismiss on the ground of pre-indictment delay without prejudice to renewal).",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "59",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003020",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Pierre-Louis",
      "McMahon",
      "Muric",
      "Drago"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Boies Schiller",
      "Government",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y.",
      "E.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "July 13, 2010",
      "July 15, 2019"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204",
      "No. 10 Cr. 112 (LTS)",
      "No. 18 Cr. 0394 (SJF) (AYS)"
    ]
  },
  "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 well-formatted and legible."
}