EFTA00032753.pdf

Type

pdf

Source set

data-set-8

Original source

Extracted text

U.S. Department of Justice 
United States Attorney 
Southern District of New York 
The Si!lo J. Mollo Building 
One Saint Andrew's Plaza 
New York, New York 10007 
December 5, 2019 
BY EMAIL 
Scott A. Srebnick, Esq. 
201 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1210 
Miami, FL 33131 
[email protected] 
Re: 
United States v. Michael Avenatti, 
Si 19 Cr. 373 (PGG) 
Dear Mr. Srebnick: 
We write in response to your letter dated December 2, 2019, which requests certain 
information in light of a New York Times article dated November 30, 2019 concerning Jeffrey 
Epstein and alleged videos, and Episode 22 of The Weekly, a television series of the New York 
Times, concerning the same. 
In your letter, you cite Federal Rule of Evidence 16(a)(1)(E)(i), the Due Process Clause, 
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), and their 
progeny. However, insofar as your request is premised on the proposition that, as you stated in 
the email enclosing your letter, the information you seek may constitute impeachment material of 
potential Government witnesses associated with Boies Schiller Flexner LLP ("BSF"), we 
understand it to be a request solely for impeachment material under Giglio and its progeny. As 
you are aware, the defendant is not entitled to such material at this time (nor has the Government 
yet determined precisely which witnesses it will call at trial). Rather, the parties have previously 
agreed, in writing, that the Government will provide such material, if any exists, on or before 
January 14, 2020. We are aware of our obligation in this respect, and intend to comply timely. 
In any event, to the extent that we understand your request, we do not agree that you are 
entitled to what you seek, assuming arguendo that it exists, and assuming further that the 
prosecution team (which is not on any Jeffrey Epstein-related investigation) both had it and was 
at liberty to provide it. See generally United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, …

Open in the interactive archive →