USA v. Safavian

Memorandum in Opposition

D.D.C.November 4, 2005

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OFAMERICA : Cr. No 05-370(PLF) V. DAVID HOSSEINSAFAVIAN Defendant GOVERNMENT’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY TheUnitedStatesofAmerica,by andthroughits undersignedattorneys,hereby respectfullysubmitsits Memorandumin Oppositionto Defendant’sMotion to Compel Discovery. For thereasonsset forth herein,thegovernmentrequeststhat theCourt deny defendant’smotion. In his Motion to Compel,defendantSafavianasksthis Court to orderthe govcnmiento providethousandsof documentsthat are either 1) notwithin thegovernment’s possessionor control; 2) do not exist; or 3) do not fit the legal requirementsof materiality. In orderthatthe Court canproperlyrule on whethertherequesteddocumentsarematerial in this case,it is critical that theCourtunderstandwhat it is thegovernmenthasallegedand,just as importantly,hasnot alleged,in this indictment. Sçjc United Statesv. George, 786 F. Supp. 56, 58 (D.D.C. 1992) (“Whenanalyzingmateriality,acourtshouldfocusfirst on theindictment which setsout the issuesto which thedefendant’stheoryofthecasemustrespond.”). I. FactualBack2round A. Abramoff’sBusinesswith GSA DefendantSafavianbecametheChiefof StafffortheGeneralServicesAdministration(“GSA”) in May, 2002. Within daysofbecomingChiefofStaff,defendantSafavianbegangetting emailsfrom Case 1:05-cr-00370-PLF Document 11 Filed 11/04/2005 Page 1 of 24 an old friend andformercolleague,JackAbramoff~a well-known andvery successfulobbyist in Washington,D.C. Abramoff adviseddefendantSafavianthat he was interestedin acquiringor leasingtheOld PostOfficeBuilding (“OPO”) locatedon PeimsylvaniaAvenue,N,W. for someof his clients. TheOPOwasmanagedandits fatewascontrolledby GSA. Abramoffalsoexpressed to defendantSafavianhis interestin acquiringor leasinga portion of theNaval SurfaceWarfare Center-WhiteOak(“White Oak”), apropertyconsistingofapproximately600acresin SilverSpring, Maryland,whichwasalsomanagedbyGSA. Abramoffwasinterestedin obtainingtheWhiteOak propertyto houseaprivateschoolthat hehad started. DefendantSafavianadvisedAbramoffbyemail in earlyJuly, 2002,thattheGSA hadnotyet determinedwhatit wasgoingto do with theWhite Oakproperty. DefendantSafavian,who knew that AbramoffhadmanyNativeAmericanIndiantribes as clients, also advisedAbramoff in that sameemailthatAbramoff”shouldknow” thatNativeAmericantribeshave“hub-zone”status,which providesfor enterprisezone-likestatusand consequentlywould provide a benefit in acquiring governmentcontracts. On July 22, 2002, Abramoff emaileddefendantSafavianand requestedthat defendant Safaviancommenton a draft letter which was to be sent by two Membersof the Houseof Representatives.The letter urged the GSA Administrator to considerproviding “hub-zone” organizationswith preferentialcontractingopportunitiesin developingtheOPO. Threedayslater,on July25,defendantSafavianforwardedbyemailto Abramoffaninternal GSA emailentitled“Old PostOffice andleases”which discussedinternalGSA strategyon proposed changesin regulationfor leasingtheOPO. Thefollowing day,on July 26, Abramoffsentanemail to defendantSafavian’shomeemail 2 Case 1:05-cr-00370-PLF Document 11 Filed 11/04/2005 Page 2 of 24 addressseekingdefendantSafavian’s adviceon anotherdraft letter, this one ostensiblyfrom the HeadmasterofAbramoffs schooltothe GSA CommissionerofPublicBuildingsrequestinga lease ofthe White Oakpropertyto Abrarnoffs school. Later on that day, defendant Safavianforwardedto Abramoffmore internal GSA emails discussingproblemswith disposingof landat White Oakto Abramoff’s school. Two days later,on July 28,defendant Safaviansent an email from his home emailaddress toAbramoff. DefendantSafaviananalyzedAbramoff’s letter andmadeanumber ofsuggestionsas to how to improve the proposedletterrequestinga leaseofWhite Oakto Abramoffs school, Twodays afterthat, onJuly30, defendantSafavianforwardedtoAbramoff aninternal GSA emailthat outlinedGSA landuserequirementsandindicated that Abramoff’s school’sleaseofany land at White Oak would be problematic. Later on that sameday, defendant Safaviansent to various GSAofficials an emailwith the subjectline, “Eshkol [sic] & White Oak” in which he statedin part, ‘Per ourconversation,how do you folks look for a meeting on this issue and possibly a quick trip to White Oak on Friday morning?” On August 2, 2002,defendant Safavianattended a meeting, which he hadarranged,with other GSA officials, two representativesofAbramoff’sschool,Abramofi’s lobbyingcolleagueand Abramoff’s wife to discussthepossibilityofthe schoolleasingfromGSA portions ofthe White Oak property. B. The ScotlandGolf Trip and Ethics Opinion At thesametime thesediscussionsregarding White OakandOPO wereoccurring, defendant Safavianand Abramoffwere alsoin contactwitheachother regardingagolftrip theyplannedto take 3 Case 1:05-cr-00370-PLF Document 11 Filed 11/04/2005 Page 3 of 24 to Scotlandin August 2002. The attendeesof the trip would include a memberof Congress, Congressionalstaffandothers.OnJuly25,2002,defendantSafaviansoughtanopinionfrom aGSA ethicsofficer,RaymondMcKenna,aboutwhetherhe couldattendthegolftrip whenAbramoffwas fully fundingthecostofa charteredjet to Scotland. In theemail in which he soughtthis opinion, defendantSafavianstatedin part that Abramoff ‘is a lawyer and lobbyist, but one that hasno businessbeforeGSA (hedoesall of his workon Capitol Hill).” Thefollowingday,on July26,Mr. McKennarespondedto defendantSafavianwith anethics opinioncontainedin an email to defendantSafavian. EugeniaEllison, a lawyerwithin theGSA GeneralCounsel’soffice,haddraftedtheethicsopinion. TheethicsopinionnotedthattheStandards ofEthicalConductfor EmployeesoftheExecutiveBranchprohibitedan employeefrom accepting a gift from a“prohibitedsource,”whichwasdefinedasonewho wasseekingofficial actionbythe employee’sagencyordidbusiness,orwasseekingto do business,with theemployee’sagency.The ethicsopinionfurtherstatedthat “[y]ou statedthatneitherMr. Abramoffnorhis firm doesbusiness with or is seekingto do businesswith GSA, Basedupontheinformationyou haveprovided,you mayacceptthegift of freetransportationfrom your friend.” After receivingthisethicsopinion,defendantSafavianfonvardedit directlyto Abramoffand statedin part“Jack- fyi. It looks like Scotlandis ago.” Oneweek later, on August 3, defendantSafavian,Abramoffand sevenothersboardeda charteredjet andflew to Scotlandwheretheyplayedgolf onmultiplewell-knownandhistoric golf courses,includingtheOld CourseatSt. Andrews, OnAugust8, defendantSafavian,Abramoff and otherscontinuedon to Londonwheretheyspenttheweekendata luxuryhotel, andthenreturnedto the United Statesaboardthe charteredjet. The total cost of the trip for nine peopleexceeded 4 Case 1:05-cr-00370-PLF Document 11 Filed 11/04/2005 Page 4 of 24 $130,000. C. TheGSA-OIGInvestigation In the Spring of 2003, GSA Office of InspectorGeneral(“GSA-OIG”) received an anonymoushotline complaint regardingdefendantSafavian’s participationin an “international golfing trip provided by lobbyists.” As a result of this complaint, GSA-OIG openedan administrativeinvestigation. On both March 27 and April 25, 2003, the GSA-OIG Regional InspectorGeneral for InvestigationsintervieweddefendantSafavianabouthis golf trip with Abramoff. During theseinterviews,defendantSafavianstatedthat at the time he took the trip with Abramoff, Abramoffhadno businesswith GSA. DefendantSafavianalsostatedthathehadpaid Abramoff for the total cost of the trip including airfare, hotels and golf greenfees. Defendant Safavianprovidedto GSA-OIGa$3,100checkto AbramoffdatedAugust3,2002,whichis thedate defendantSafavianboardedthecharteredjet to Scotland. Basedin parton defendantSafavian’sstatementhatAbramoffhadno businesswith GSA atthetime ofthegolf trip andthat defendantSafavianhadfully paidfor his costofthetrip, GSA- OIG closedits investigation. D. The SenateInvestigation In March 2004, the Committee on Indian Affairs of the United States Senate(the “Committee”)beganan investigationinto allegationsofmisconductbyAbramoff andothersthat hadbeenmadeby severalNativeAmericantribes. As amemberof theCommittee,SenatorJohn McCain andhis staffhad theresponsibilityto gathermaterialsrelatedto thoseallegations. The Committeeheldpublic hearingson this matteron September29, 2004and November17, 2004. 5 Case 1:05-cr-00370-PLF Document 11 Filed 11/04/2005 Page 5 of 24 Additionally, theCommittee’sinvestigationrevealedthat tribal ftindswereusedbyAbramofftopay for a portionoftheAugust2002 Scotlandtrip. Acting in hiscapacityasChairmanoftheCommittee,SenatorMcCainauthorizedhis staff to sendto defendantSafaviana letterdatedFebruary23, 2005 requestinginformationaboutthe August2002 Scotlandtrip with Abramoff In March 2005, defendantSafavianspokeby telephonewith an investigatorfrom the Committeeandrepresentedthathehadreceivedapprovalfor theScotlandgolf trip in aGSA ethics opinionandthathehadfully disclosedall relevantfactsto theGSA ethicsofficerwhopreparedthe opinion. On March 17, 2005, defendantSafavianrespondedto ChairmanMcCain’s requestfor informationabouthis golf trip with Abramoffwith a letter in which hestatedin part [w]hen theinvitation wasmade,I wasthechiefof staff to theU.S. GeneralServicesAdministration(“GSA”). Mr. Abramoff did not haveany businessbeforetheagencyat that time. Prior to departure, I consultedwith the GSA Office of GeneralCounsel to obtain guidanceon the proprietyof this trip. Counseldeterminedthat I couldaccepthevalueofthetripgratis; it did notmeetthedefinition of a ‘gift from aprohibitedsource’underthe applicableregulations, norwasit considereda gift givenbecauseof my official position. DefendantSafavianenclosedwith his letterto theCommitteehis July 25, 2002email to theGSA ethicsofficer, theGSA ethicsopinion regardingtheAugust 2002 Scotlandtrip and a copyof his $3100checkto AbramoffdatedAugust3, 2002. As a resultof the factual allegationsdiscussedsupra,thegrandjury returneda five-count Indictmenthat chargesdefendantSafavianwith Obstructinga GSA-OIGProceeding(CountOne); FalseStatements(in connectionwith therepresentationsmadeto both theGSA ethicsofficer and 6 Case 1:05-cr-00370-PLF Document 11 Filed 11/04/2005 Page 6 of 24 the GSA-OIG)(CountsTwo andThree); Obstructinga SenateProceeding(CountFour) andFalse Statements(CountFive) (in connectionwith his representationswith theSenateCommittee). II. Defendant’sDiscoveryMotion andtheApplicableLaw It is againstthis factual backdropthat defendantSafavian’sdiscoveryrequestsmust be viewed. DefendantSafavianis now seekingto compel thegovernmentto discloseto him tensof thousandsofpagesof documentsto whichhehasno right andthathaveno relevanceorconnection to the chargesin this case. The principlesof law relevantto defendant’sdiscoverymotion arewell-settled, As this Court is aware,in criminal prosecutions,“the Bradyrule,Rule 16 andtheJeneksAct exhaustthe universeof discoveryto whichthedefendantis entitled.” UnitedStatesv. Presser,844F.2d 1275, 1286 n. 12 (6t1 Cir. 1988); seePennsylvaniav. Ritchie,480 U.S. 39, 59 (1987);United Statesv. Bagley,473U.S. 667,676(1985)(“theprosecutorisnot requiredto deliverhis entirefile to defense counsel,but only to discloseevidencefavorableto the accusedthat, if suppressed,would deprive thedefendantof afair trial”). UndertheBrady doctrine,theprosecutionhasan affirmativeduty to produceexculpatory evidencewhen such evidenceis material to either guilt or punishment. Evidenceis material, however, “only if there is a reasonableprobability that, had the evidencebeendisclosedto the defense,theresultoftheproceedingwouldhavebeendifferent.” Stricklerv. Greene,527U.S. 263, 280 (1999)citing United Statesv. Bagley. 473 U.S. at 682. The prosecutoris not requiredto discloseneutralor inculpatoryevidence.SeeUnitedStatesv. Bryan,868F.2d1032, 1037 (9” Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 858 (1989) (evidenceis not automatically exculpatorybecauseis not 7 Case 1:05-cr-00370-PLF Document 11 Filed 11/04/2005 Page 7 of 24 inculpatory);UnitedStatesv. Comosona,848 F.2d 1110, 1115 ( 10 th Cir. 1988)(theUnitedStates doesnot haveto produceanystatementswhich do not “expressly”containexculpatorymaterial); UnitedStatesv. Cochran,697 F.2d600, 605 (5” Cir. 1983);UnitedStatesv. Agurs,427 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (thegovernmentis under“no duty to providedefensecounselwith unlimiteddiscovery of everythingknownby theprosecutor”). Thecentralrequirementsfordiscoverypursuanto Rule 1 6(a)(1)C) is thatthedefendantmust showthat thedocumentsor evidencesoughtto be discoveredarematerialto thepreparationofhis defense.“Theevidencemustnot simply‘bearsomeabstractlogical relationshipto theissuesin the case .... Theremust be some indication that pretrial disclosureof the disputedevidencewould [enable] the defendantsignificantly to alter the quantumof proofin his favor.” UnitedStatesv. George,786 F. Supp.11, 13 (D.D.C. 1991)citingUnitedStatesv. Ross,511 F.2d757, 762-63(5th Cir.)ç~.denied,423U.S. 836(1975);UnitedStatesv. Caaicedo-Llanos,960F.2d158, 164,fn. 14 (D.C. Cir. 1992);UnitedStatesv. Poindexter,727 F. Supp.1470, 1485 (D.D.C. 1989)(“Thelaw is clearthat theUnitedStatesis not requiredsimplyto tum all its files over to adefendant.Nor is it requiredto provideto thedefendantevidencethat is not exculpatorybut is merelynot inculpatory and might thereforeform thegroundworkfor someargumentin favorofthe defense”). III. ArQument DefendantSafavianoutlineshis requestin AttachmentA ofhis Motion. Wehavepatterned ourresponseto that structureincludingthetwo majorsections:A) documentsthat theGovernment possessesthat wedeclineto produce;andB) documentsnot in theGovernment’spossessionthatwe declineto or cannotproduce. 8 Case 1:05-cr-00370-PLF Document 11 Filed 11/04/2005 Page 8 of 24 A. Documentsfor WhichtheProsecutionHasAcknowledgedPossessionButHasStatedIt Will Not Produce DefendantSafavianhasmadefourseparaterequestsfor documentsthat theGovernmenthas in its possession,but that wehavestatedwe declineto produce. 1. AttachmentA - Page2 - ParagraphA DefendantSafavian‘s requestfor documentsiden4fying the substanceof Defendant Safavian‘s actionablestatements,includingall investigativereports, roughnotes,andtapes ofGSA GeneralCounselRayMcKennaandEugeniaEllison pertainingto theJuly 2002 requestfor an advisotyopinion DefendantSafavianrequeststhat the governmentto turn over to him “the recordof his purportedstatement[at issuein CountTwo] andanyrelateddocuments,roughnotes,ormemoranda that memorializethediscussionwith DefendantSafavianthat is referredto in theMarch 1, 2005 facsimilefrom Ms. EugeniaD. Ellison.” D. Motion, p. 8. On October7, 2005, the governmentprovidedto defendantSafavianthe email sentby defendantSafavianto theethicsofficer (Mr. McKenna)as well as the email responsefrom Mr. McKennato defendantSafavian.Both ofthesedocumentsarequotedin partin the indictment. We havepreviouslyrepresentedto defendantSafavian,andnow representto theCourt,thatthereareno roughnotesofanyconversationsbetweendefendantSafavianandMr. McKennaorMs. Ellison. Nor arethereanytapesorotherrecordingsoftheseemails. To theextentthatthisrequestalsoseeksFBI 302sorROIs ofMr. McKennaand/orMs. Ellison, thegovernmentassertsthat suchitemsarenot discoverablepursuantto Rule 16. ~Thi]eRule16 doesauthorizebroadpretrialdiscoveryofadefendant’sstatements,’theRule ‘Rule 1 6(a)(1 )(A) definesa defendant’sstatementas one that is “madeby the defendant beforeor afterarrest,in responseto interrogationbyapersonthedefendantknewwasa govemment agentif thegovernmentintendsto usethestatementattrial.” In this case,neitherMr. McKennaor Ms. Ellisonwereactingasgovernmentagentswhen theysoughtto provideDefendantSafavianwith an appropriateethicsopinion. Mr. McKennawas 9 Case 1:05-cr-00370-PLF Document 11 Filed 11/04/2005 Page 9 of 24 doesnotapplyto statementsmadebyprospectivegovernmentwitnesses.Theproductionofwitness statementsis governedsolelyby theJencksAct. Palermov. United States,360 U.S. 343 (1959). Ru]e 16(a)(2)explicitly recognizesthis fact in its directivethat Rule 16 doesnot authorize“the discoveryor inspectionof statementsmadeby governmentwitnessesor prospectivegovernment witnessesexceptasprovidedin 18 U.S.C.Sec. 3500.” UnitedStatesv. Tarantino,846 F.2d 1384, 1414 (D.C. Cir. 1988) ( “Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure16(a)(2) prohibits discoveryof statementsbygovernmentwitnessesorprospectivegovernmentwitnessesexceptasprovidedin the JencksAct, 18 U.S.C. Sec.3500 (1982). TheJencksAct directsthat in a criminalprosecution, statementsmadeby governmentwitnessesarenot opento discoveryor inspectionby the defense until saidwitnesseshavetestifiedon direct examinationin thetrial ofthecase....TheAct supplies theonly avenueto thematerialsit encompasses,and ‘statementsof a governmentwitnessmadeto an agentof theGovernmentwhich cannotbe producedunderthetermsof 18 U.S.C. Sec 3500 cannotbeproducedat all”) (United Statesv. Haldeman,559F.2d 31, 77 n. 111 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (quotingPalermov. UnitedStates,360 U.S. at 351). In this case,theROI and/or302 of Mr. McKennaandMs. Ellison will be disclosedif they testify and if it is determinedthat the ROI or 302 constitutesJencks. The fact that Defendant Safavianbelieveshaving advancecopiesof the302 or ROI ofthesewitnesseswould be helpful in preparinghiscaseis simplynot a legallyrelevantconsiderationfor theCourt. SeeTarantino,846 F.2d 1418 (“Under our law, the adversarysystem is the ‘primary meansby which truth is uncovered”)(quotingUnited Statesv. Baglev,473 U.S. 667, 675 (1985)). thegeneralcounselof GSA; Ms. Ellison wasa staffattorneyat GSA. Thus,neithercanbedeemed a “governmentagents”whowere questioningDefendantSafavian. 10 Case 1:05-cr-00370-PLF Document 11 Filed 11/04/2005 Page 10 of 24 Althoughnot specificallyidentifiedin AttachmentA ofDefendantSafavian’smotionin his memorandumin supportofthemotion, he alsoseeks“all 302s,ROIs,orothermaterials,including roughnotesandmemoranda,incorporatingDefendantSafavian’sactionablestatementsin paragraph 36 of CountsFourandFive in orderto identify thesubstanceof his conversationwith the Senate ‘investigator.”D. Motion, p. 9. Althoughnot requiredto do sobyRule16, theJencksAct orBrady, thegovernmenthasturnedoverto defendantSafaviantheFBI 302softheinterviewswith theSenate staffers. Thisdisclosureis aboveandbeyondwhat is mandatedby Rule 16. Thegovernmenthas previouslyrepresentedto defendantSafavian’scounselthat it doesnot havein its possessionany contemporaneousnotesthatweretakenbytheSenateinvestigatorin his conversationwith defendant Safavian.However,wehaveaskedthestafferto maintainthesenotesandtheywill beprovidedto thedefenseasJencksif thestaffertestifiesandif thenotesaredeemedto beJencks.See18 U.S.C. Sec.3500(e)(1)and(2) DefendantSafavianalso is askingtheCourt to compelthe governmentto disclose“rough notesor tapesof theinterviews” with theSenatestaffers. D. Mem. 9. Theseinterviewswere not tape-recorded,and thus thereis no tapeof the interview.2 The governmentwill not disclosethe agent’snotesof theseinterviewsbecausetheyarenot discoverableunderRule 16. Nor will the governmenturn over302sorROIsofgovernmentwitnessesoverandabovewhathasalreadybeen providedto thedefense. ~ United Statesv. Palermo,360 U.S. 343, 350 (“One of the most importantmotive forcesbehindthe enactmentof [the JencksAct] was thefear that an expansive ‘DefendantSafavianalsofocuseson theterms“dictation” and “transcription”in theFBI 302 form in therequestfor any tapesof the agentdictatingthe 302. As counselfor the Defendantis undoubtedlyaware,the FBI 302 form is a standardform, and the dateof dictation doesnot necessarilymeanthat the302 wasdictated. In all 302srelevantto this case,no dictationoccurred, andno tapesoftheFBI agentexist. 11 Case 1:05-cr-00370-PLF Document 11 Filed 11/04/2005 Page 11 of 24 readingofienckswouldcompeltheundiscrirninatingproductionofagent’ssummariesofinterviews regardlessoftheircharacterorcompleteness....[I]twasfelt to begrosslyunfairto allow thedefense to usestatementsandimpeacha witnesswhichcouldnot fairlybesaidto bethewitness’ownrather than theproduct of the investigator’sselections,interpretations,and interpolations.” See also UnitedStatesv. Trie,21 F. Supp.2d 7,26(D.D.C. 1998)(defendant“not entitledto thenotesand recordsuponwhich theFBI 302 reportsofwitnessstatements[are] based”). 2. AttachmentA - Page2 - ParagraphB RoughInterviewNotesandTapesofAgentsReisingandBrookMinnickfron2 the May 2& 2005Interview OnMay26, 2005,FBI SpecialAgentJeffreyReisingandDepartmentof InteriorOffice of InspectorGeneralSpecialAgentBrook Minnick intervieweddefendantSafavianathis office at the OfficeofManagementandBudget. DefendantSafavianhasbeenpreviouslyprovideda copyofthe FBI 302 from this May 26, 2005 interview. Nonetheless,DefendantSafavianis seekingtherough notesofthe interviewingagents.Although thegovernmentdoesnotconcedethat Rule16 requires that thegovernmentprovideto thedefensea copyof the agent’snotesunderthesecircumstances (wherethe302 summarizesthesubstanceof thestatement)it will agreeto providea redactedcopy of the agent’s notes to defendant.3 Therefore, the governmentrespectfullyrequeststhat this ‘United Statesv. Vallee,380 F.Supp2d 11, 14 (D. Ma. 2005)(“TheCourt is cognizanthat theproductionofan agent’shandwrittennotesis fraughtwith potentialdangersandproblems.Such notesare rarely accuratetranscriptions,and insteadoften consistin substantialpartof sentence fragments,abbreviations,anddisconnectedwords. Theyarelikely to be confusing,ambiguous,or misleadingin the absenceof an explanation as to their content. They may contain mental impressions,comments,notesto one’sself, or possiblefollow-up questions,which mayrequire painstakingredactions....[T]he Rule only requiresthe productionof that ‘portion’ of any written recordcontainingthesubstanceofa defendant’sstatement.Underordinarycircumstances,therefore, thegovernmentmayredactall materialsin thenotesotherthanthesubstanceofthestatementitself 12 Case 1:05-cr-00370-PLF Document 11 Filed 11/04/2005 Page 12 of 24 particularrequestbe denied,without prejudice,asbeingmoot. 3. AttachmentA - Page2 - ParagraphC Email correspondencebetweenbusinessassociatesofLobbyistA concerningDefendant Safavian, the Old Post Office Building, the NSWC-WhiteOak Property, and the 2002 ScotlandTrip It isnecessaryto referto defendantSafavian’sdiscoveryletterofOctober14,2005(D. Mem. Ex. 3) in conjunctionwith his instant motion to fully appreciatethe scopeof this demand. In additionto emailsto andfrom defendantSafavian,defendantSafavianis seekingall emailssentto or from 17 othernamedindividuals. The October14 letter statesthat defendantSafavianis requestingall of theseemailsbetweenMayandAugust,2002 “whethertheydirectly relateto this caseor anyrelatedinvestigation.” In his motion in AttachmentA, DefendantSafavianappearsto “limit” this requestto emails “concerning” the Old Post Office Building, White Oak and the Scotlandtrip. D. Mem. 17-18. DefendantSafavian’srequesthasno timerestrictions:heis seeking “any andall correspondence”bothbeforeandaftertheScotlandtrip. OnOctober7, 2005,thegovernmentprovidedto defendantSafavianemailsbetweenhimself, Abramoff or otherindividuals that pertainedto the OPO, White Oak or the Scotlandtrip. The governmentadviseddefendantSafavianthat thoseemailscomprisedthevastmajority oftheemail evidenceit intends to introduceat trial. After the initial discovery request,the government subsequentlyturned over all of the email traffic betweendefendantSafavianand Abramoff, regardlessofdate.This disclosureinvolved over 1300pagesof emailsovera nineyearperiodfrom 1995 to 2004. Moreover,theCourtsinterpretationis limited solelyto Rule 16(a)(l)(b)(ii), which appliesonly to defendant’s tatements;it doesnot, for example,extendto witnessstatementsundertheJencksAct, 18 U.S.C. Sec.3500,which containsa substantiallydifferent disclosureobligation.”) 13 Case 1:05-cr-00370-PLF Document 11 Filed 11/04/2005 Page 13 of 24 Defendant’spresentdemandfor emailsto and from 17 various individuals,with no time frameinvolved, and regardlessof whetheror not defendantSafavianwas even awareof their existence,should be deniedbecausedefendantSafavianhasutterly failed to makethe requisite showingthat thesedocuments— whichhehasneverseen arematerialto his defense,i.e. “that the pretrial disclosureof thedisputedevidencewould [enable]thedefendantsignificantly to alter the quantumofproofin his favor.” United Statesv. Lloyd, 992F.2d 348, 351 (DC Cir. 1993). To understandjust howcompletelydefendantSafavianhasfailed in making this showing, it is necessaryto recall what it is the governmentmustprove at trial: that at the time defendant Safavianemailedand spoketo theGSA ethicsofficer in May of 2002 or the GSA-OIG agentin March andApril 2003,he madefalsestatementsor concealedthefact that he knewAbramoffwas doing businessbeforeGSA, and that in Februaryand March, 2005, defendantSafavianrepeated thosesamefalsehoodsandconcealedAbramoff’sbusinessinterestsin representationswith a Senate Committee.At trial, theissuewill be whetherdefendantSafavianknowingly andintentionallylied orconcealedinfornrntionon theseparticularoccasions.DefendantSafaviandoesnotallegethathe sawany ofthethousandsofemailshenow seeks.Therefore,becausehe wasunawareofthecontent oftheseemails,theyobviouslycouldnothavehad anybearingon his stateofmind atthe relevant — or, for thatmatter,any other— time frame. DefendantSafavian’smotion states,in a wholly conclusoryfashion,that“communications betweenMr. AbramoffandhisassociatesconcerningMr. Safavian,thenatureoftheseexpressions of interestin theseproperties,thedetailsof theScotlandtrip, andinternalGSA correspondence. would certainly‘bear[] someabstractlogical relationshipto the issuesin this case.” D. Motion, p.17. Thegovernmentdisputesflatly this contention. Indeed,it seemsinconceivablethat anyof 14 Case 1:05-cr-00370-PLF Document 11 Filed 11/04/2005 Page 14 of 24 thesecommunications,if they were unknown to defendantSafavian,could have any “logical relationshipto the issuesin this case,”beit abstractor not. Moreover,defendantSafavianfails to notethatthe legal standardhe proposes- an “abstractlogical relationship”- is not thesumofthe materialitytest;he mustalsoshowthattheinformationwould “[enable] thedefendantsignificantly to alterthequantumofproofin his favor.” Lloyd, 992 F.2dat 351. Thishecannotdo. It is simply not enoughfor defendantSafavianto makea conclusoryallegationthat therequestedevidenceis material. “If thecourtscreditedsuchstatements,defendantscouldobtainabsolutelyanythingthey wantedsimply by making suchan assertion.”United Statesv. Savarese,2002WL 265153at *2 (S.D.N.Y.2002). Indeed,by this requestdefendantSafavianseeksthe Court’s pennissionto go on aclassic “fishing expedition”in thehopesofdisruptingongoinginvestigationsandthusforcethegovernment to choosebetweenthisprosecutionandotherinvestigations.Thegovernmenthasalreadyprovided to defendantSafavianall oftheemail trafficbetweendefendantSafavianandAbramoffoveranine yearperiodregardlessofsubjectmatter.Thedefensecanmakeofthis materialwhat it likes. If the previouslydisclosedmaterialrefersto aparticularemailon aparticulardateor daterangethat the defensefeelsis importantto its case,thegovernmentwill certainlyattemptto accommodatesuch a request. But, aspresentlyframed,this requestshouldbedenied. 4. AttachmentA - Page2 -ParagraphD Emails sent to/from GSA officials relating to thestatusofthe OPB andNSWC-WhiteOak properties. The governmenthasproducedall ofthe emails from GSA officials regardingOPO and NSWC-WhiteOakthat it hasin its possession.As illustrated in thediscoveryproduction,those emailswereobtainedbecausedefendantSafavianforwardedthat informationto Abramoff 15 Case 1:05-cr-00370-PLF Document 11 Filed 11/04/2005 Page 15 of 24 B. Documentsthe ProsecutionHas StatedIt Will Not ProduceBecauseTheyAre Not in the Government‘s Possession DefendantSafavianis seekingdocumentsthat theDepartmentofJusticeor its investigative agencies,GSA-OIG andtheFBI, do not possess.Thegovernmentunderstandsits obligationsto provide discovery mandatedby Rule 16 and Brady and is not attemptingto evadethese responsibilitiesby claimingthat it doesnot have“technical” or “actual” possessionof requested itemswhenin factthegovernmentknowsoftheexistenceoftheitem in question.Forpurposesof thismotionresponse,thegovernmentis notattemptingto distinguishbetweenitemsin its possession and those in the possessionof any of its investigativeagencies,GSA-OIG or the FBI. The governmentacknowledgesthat for purposesof this particularprosecution,it is appropriateto considerthe Departmentof Justice,GSA-OIG andthe FBI asone and the same(at leastin the contextofdiscovery). ThesamecannotbesaidoftheUnitedStatesSenatewhich — at the risk ofstating theobvious — is aseparatebranchof government.~, UnitedStatesv. Trie,21 F. Supp.2d 7,25, fri. 17 (“The Congressis not an ‘agency,’ andtheDOJhasno obligationunderBradyto discloseinformationin thepossessionofCongressthat is not alsoin thepossessionoftheDOJor theFEC.”) TheSenate in thiscase,whilebyno meansuncooperativewith this investigation,hasnotpermittedusto inspect their files orrecords. Thegovernmentdoesnotquarrelwith thepropositionthat“a prosecutorwhohashadaccess to documentsin other agenciesin the courseof his investigationcannotavoid his discovery obligationsby selectivelyleavingthematerialswith theagencyoncehehasreviewedthem.” D. Motion, p. 21, quotingPoindexter,727F. Supp. 1470, 1477(D.D.C. 1989). Thegovernmenthas attemptedto do no suchthing in this case,We havenot avoidedanyof ourdiscoveryobligations 16 Case 1:05-cr-00370-PLF Document 11 Filed 11/04/2005 Page 16 of 24 by deliberatelyleaving relevantmaterialswith “other” governmentagencies. We haveor will discloseto defendantSafavianall of thedocumentsof which we are awareandwhich constitute eitherBrady, Rule 16 or Jencks. 1. AttachmentA - Page3 - ParagraphA TheIdentityoftheAuthoroftheHotline Complaint, andevidenceofany other complaints madeto theGSAthat bearsimilar markings DefendantSafavianseeksfrom the governmentthe identity of the authorof thehotline complaintagainsthim. Accordingto his motion, theidentityofthisauthoris materialto thedefense becausethedefendant“must ascertainwhetherthecomplainantis a ‘serial complainant’who has madea numberofpolitically-chargedcomplaintsagainstotherGSA officials” andthata“familiarity with this individual’s repeatedcomplaintsmayhavebeena factorin the GSA-OIG’sdecisionto closeits investigationimmediatelyafterdefendantSafavianadequatelydemonstratedthathehadnot acceptedany gift in thefirst place.” D. Motion, p. 22. DefendantSafavianalsostates,without any furtherexplanation,thestartlingpropositionthat“[t]he identityofthecomplainantwould alsobear a logicalrelationshipto therelateddefenseof entrapment.”4j~. The governmenthaspreviouslyrepresentedto counselfor defendantSafavianthat the DepartmentofJusticeandall relatedinvestigatingagenciesdo notknow theidentityofthehotline tipster. Norwill thegovernmentattemptto argueto thejury thatthecomplaintwasorwasnot true. ‘DefendantSafaviandoesnot explainthebasisfor his puzzlingsuggestionthat theidentity ofthetipstercouldsomehowbolsteranentrapmentdefense.Thegovernmentcannotconceivehow the identityofthehotlinetipstercouldhaveanybearingon whetherornotdefendantwasentrapped. We alsonotethat evenif defendantSafavianwere somehowentrappedinto lying to theGSA-OIG in 2002 (i.e., AbramoffreallywasdoingbusinessbeforeGSA anddefendantSafavianknewthis to be trueyethe was entrappedinto denyingthis wasthecase),thatit seemsveryunlikely — to saythe least— thatdefendantSafavianwas still somehowentrappedthreeyearslaterwhenhe repeatedthe samelie to theSenateCommitteein 2005. 17 Case 1:05-cr-00370-PLF Document 11 Filed 11/04/2005 Page 17 of 24 Thecomplaintis relevantonly becauseit explainswhy theGSA-OIGinitiated this investigation. The governmentfurther objectsto defendantSafavian’srequestthat we produce“other complaintsthatusea similar font, languageormethodof transmittal”sothat thedefensecanattempt to locatethetipster. Themethodoftransmittalin this easewasa fax; therewasnothinguniqueabout either the languageor the font employedin the tip.5 Moreover,the identity ofthe tipster is not materialto thedefensein thisease.Theparticularreasonthat GSA-OIGinitiatedthis complainthas no bearingon whetherdefendantSafavianwasorwasnot truthful to theGSA ethicsofficer,theGSA- OIG andtheSenate.Defensecounselwill, ofcourse,be free to cross-examinetheGSA-OIG agent who intervieweddefendantSafavianaboutwhat theagent’sobjectiveswereandwhat he wastrying to accomplishwhenspeakingwith thedefendantSafavian,aswell aswhatrole,if any,thesubstance ofthehotline complaintplayedin his questioningofdefendant.Thereis, however,simplyno reason to force the governmentto undertakean investigationinto the identity of an individual whenany resultscanhardlybe consideredBrady in this case. 2. AttachmentA - Page3 - ParagraphB GSAProceduresor AgreementsRelatedto Ethics Opinions DefendantSafavianwants the governmentto discloseto him “internal (i.e. not readily availableon websitesor federal register)documents,guidelines,and agreementsregardingthe issuanceofadvisoryopinions.” D. Motion, p. 23. In short,thegovernmentdoesnotunderstandwhat it is that defendantSafavianis seeking,althoughit seemsclearthattherequesteddocumentswould 5DefendantSafavianhasattacheda copyofthescannedHotline complaintasD. Mem. Ex. 11. As notedin our October24, 2005 correspondence,D. Mem. Ex. 5, we providedtwo copiesof theHotline complaint- a scannedelectronicversion(DOJ-DS-1470)anda copyof thepaperfile (DOJ-DS-1523). A review of a copy of the paper file indicate no unique typographical characteristicsoftheHothinecomplaint. A copyofthepaperfile is attachedheretoasExhibit “A.” 18 Case 1:05-cr-00370-PLF Document 11 Filed 11/04/2005 Page 18 of 24 notbe evidencein thecase.Nor would “internalguidelinesregardingtheextentoftheattorney-client privilegebetweenGSA G~eneralCounselandGSA officials.” j~.DefendantSafavianis seekingthese documentsbecausethey“will aid in our ability to secureinterviewswith [] potentialwitnesses.”Id. NeitherRule16 norBradyappliesto this typeofrequest.This is notevidencethat is “materialto the defense,”asthat term is describedin the case-law. Nor is it Bradyevidence. Thus, this request shouldbe denied. 3. AttachmentA - Page3 - ParagraphC Reports,documentsand correspondencesent to, or emanatingfrom, GSA Commissioner JosephfivIoravecandrelatedGSAofficials concerningtheOldPostOfficeBuilding, NSWC- WhiteOakProperties,andGSAProceduresandPoliciesfor disposalofGovernmentproperty This requestfails for the samereasonthat theprior requestfor all emails of 17 various individuals alsofailed: DefendantSafaviancannotdemonstratethematerialityofhis request.The emails, reports,documentsand correspondence“sent to or emanatingfrom GSA Commissioner JosephMoravec”arebeingrequestedregardlessofwhetherornottheywereeverseenby Defendant Safavian.Indeed,DefendantSafavianis seekingdocumentsthatweresentin thethreeyearsafterhe allegedlylied to theGSA-OIG in 2002. DefendantSafaviancannotdemonstrateby anylogic how emails and correspondencesent to or from Mr. Moravec — correspondencewhich Defendant Safaviandoesnot allegeheeversawor relieduponin anyfashion— couldhaveanybearingon what hisstateof mindwaswhenhe soughtan ethicsopinion in 2002,wasinterviewedby theGSA-OIG in 2003,or senta letter to theSenatecommitteein 2005. Again, this is, pureandsimple, a fishing expedition. 19 Case 1:05-cr-00370-PLF Document 11 Filed 11/04/2005 Page 19 of 24 4. AttachmentA - Page3 - ParagraphD Documents,videotapes,reports,or otherrecordsaboutDefendantSafavian‘s arrestand/or cooperationin any othermatter DefendantSafavianstatesthat “uponinformation andbelief’ thegovernment“may” have developeda plan to “have prosecutionagentsthreatenDefendantSafavianwith the decisionto ‘cooperateor facearrest.”D. Motion, p. 26. Accordingto DefendantSafavian’sdiscoveryletter of October26 (D. Motion, Ex. 7), this requestis for information about“a plan [] to secureMr. Safavian’scooperationin theAbramoff investigation.” DefendantSafavian,it appears,is seeking internalgovernmentmemoranda,emailsandcommunicationsthatrelateto apurported“plan” to get DefendantSafavianto cooperatewith thegovernment,includingattorneywork product. This requestshouldbe deniedfor a numberofreasons.First andforemost,Rule I 6(a)(2) expresslyprohibitsthis typeofrequest.6DefendantSafavianarguesthattheRuleonlyprohibitssuch disclosuresin the defendant’sown caseand not in other investigations. BecauseDefendantis requestingdocumentsrelatingto aplanto secure]~j~cooperation,suchmemorandum,if anyexist, wouldbeclearlyrelatedto ~ own case,andthusspecificallyprohibitedfrom Rule16 disclosure. In anyevent,theDefendanthasonceagainfailed to showhowthesememoranda,eventhey exist, arematerialto his case. The issueat trial is whetheror notDefendantSafavianlied to the GSA andtheSenateCommitteein 2002, 2003 andearly2005. Theinternaldeliberativeprocessof theDepartmentofJusticein theSummerandFallof2005 is simplyirrelevantto theallegationsthat 6Rule 16(a)(2)states: (2) Information Not Subjectto Disclosure.ExceptasRule l6(a)(1)providesotherwise, this rule doesnot authorizethediscoveryor inspectionof reports,memoranda,or other internal governmentdocumentsmadeby an attorneyfor the governmentor othergovernmentagentin connectionwith investigatingorprosecutingthecase.Nordoesthis ruleauthorizethediscoveryor inspectionosstatementsmadeby prospectivegovernmentwitnessesexceptasprovidedin 18U.S.C. Sec.3500. 20 Case 1:05-cr-00370-PLF Document 11 Filed 11/04/2005 Page 20 of 24 the governmentwill seekto prove at trial. Becausethematerialssoughtare not materialto the defensein this caseandtheirdisclosureis expresslyprohibitedby Rule 16, this requestshouldbe denied. 5. AttachmentA - Page3 - ParagraphE NotesandRoughNotesoftheSenateInvestigatorandSenateStaffersregardingstatements madeby DefendantSafavian As notedsupra,thesematerialsmaybecoveredby theJencksAct, andthegovernmentwill makethis determinationat thetime oftrial. Theyare clearlynotBrady noraretheydiscoverable by Rule 16. Therefore,thisrequestshouldbe denied. III. Conclusion For the foregoingreasons,the Governmentsubmitsthat DefendantSafavian’smotion to compel is without legalor factualmerit, andrespectfullyrequeststheCourt deny theDefendant’s Motion to CompelDiscovery. Respectfullysubmitted, Trial Attorney,FraudSection Criminal Division UnitedStatesDepartmentof Justice PETERR. ZEIDENBERG Trial Attorney,Public IntegritySection CriminalDivision United StatesDepartmentof Justice ATHANTEL B. EDMONDS 21 Case 1:05-cr-00370-PLF Document 11 Filed 11/04/2005 Page 21 of 24 EXHIBIT “A” Case 1:05-cr-00370-PLF Document 11 Filed 11/04/2005 Page 22 of 24 M~-2G-2003 10:04 GSA/OIS’DC . ~ 4119 P.02#’02. untitled GSA inspector ceneral Fax (202) ~01—4119 suject: David safavian it has recently come to my attention that David safavian engagedin activity in violation of federal lawS it is my understandinq that shortly ,after his appointment to GSA he participated in an international golfing trip provided by lobbyists. in November of 2002 he participated in political campaigns in other States, During these activities he used his govertt1en~ teliphone, computer and Blackberry. Those of us who work in the federal government expect more from those who are appoi nted and would like to make sure resources aren’t misused. Page 1 DOJ-DS-001523 TOTAL P.02 Case 1:05-cr-00370-PLF Document 11 Filed 11/04/2005 Page 23 of 24 CERTifICATE OF SERVICE I herebycertify that on this 4th dayofNovember,2005, a copyoftheforegoingwasserved on thefollowing counselby facsimile,electronicserviceandfirst classmail to: BarbaraVan Gelder,Esq. Wiley Rein& Fielding 1776K StreetNW Washington,DC 20006 Tel: 202-719-7032 Facsimile:202-719-7049 NATHANIEL B. EDMONDS Trial Attorney FraudSection,Criminal Division UnitedStatesDepartmentofJustice Case 1:05-cr-00370-PLF Document 11 Filed 11/04/2005 Page 24 of 24