Epstein Secrets

vulnerable witnesses"). That is particularly true where the subpoena at issue seeks material that the defendants would be entitled to, if at all, as Giglio or 3500 material given that the Government has a cognizable interest in "controlling the timing of disclosures as to" witnesses who are expected to

the Government has various disclosure obligations. United States v. Cole, No. 19 Cr. 869 (ER), 2021 WL 912425, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2021); see Bergstein, 2017 WL 6887596, at *3. Finally, the Government has standing to challenge subpoenas that call for its own communications. See United States v. Cart

vulnerable witnesses"). That is particularly true where the subpoena at issue seeks material that the defendants would be entitled to, if at all, as Giglio or 3500 material given that the Government has a cognizable interest in "controlling the timing of disclosures as to" witnesses who are expected to

) (alterations omitted) (quoting United States v. Giampa, No. 92 Cr. 437 (PKL), 1992 WL 296440, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 1992)); see United States v. Bergstein, No. 16 EFTA00022030 --- PAGE BREAK --- Page 5 Cr. 746 (PKC), 2017 WL 6887596, at *2-*3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2017) ("Preventing the undue harassm

. Furthermore, to the extent Maxwell argues that the Government may have the documents and has refused to produce them in contravention of Brady or Giglio, the argument is little more than an attempt to circumvent the discovery processes that are in place. The production of Giglio material has not yet

e Government's briefing regardless of standing as part of its duty to ensure that the subpoena meets the requirements of Nixon. See United States v. Bergstein, No. I6-CR-746 (PKC), 2017 WL 6887596, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2017). But ex parte Rule 17(c) subpoenas are possible in some circumstances if just

. Furthermore, to the extent Maxwell argues that the Government may have the documents and has refused to produce them in contravention of Brady or Giglio, the argument is little more than an attempt to circumvent the discovery processes that are in place. The production of Giglio material has not yet

e Government's briefing regardless of standing as part of its duty to ensure that the subpoena meets the requirements of Nixon. See United States v. Bergstein, No. I6-CR-746 (PKC), 2017 WL 6887596, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2017). But ex parte Rule 17(c) subpoenas are possible in some circumstances if just

. Furthermore, to the extent Maxwell argues that the Government may have the documents and has refused to produce them in contravention of Brady or Giglio, the argument is little more than an attempt to circumvent the discovery processes that are in place. The production of Giglio material has not yet

e Government's briefing regardless of standing as part of its duty to ensure that the subpoena meets the requirements of Nixon. See United States v. Bergstein, No. I6-CR-746 (PKC), 2017 WL 6887596, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2017). But ex parte Rule 17(c) subpoenas are possible in some circumstances if just

. Furthermore, to the extent Maxwell argues that the Government may have the documents and has refused to produce them in contravention of Brady or Giglio, the argument is little more than an attempt to circumvent the discovery processes that are in place. The production of Giglio material has not yet

e Government's briefing regardless of standing as part of its duty to ensure that the subpoena meets the requirements of Nixon. See United States v. Bergstein, No. I6-CR-746 (PKC), 2017 WL 6887596, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2017). But ex parte Rule 17(c) subpoenas are possible in some circumstances if just