“Summaries” of factual information would likewise fall within this work product doctrine, as such summaries would reflect AUSA mental impressions of the case. Finally, in the materials listed on the USAO’s privilege log, which were previously provided to the Court for in camera review, every reference to a statement of Stephanou concerning Contorinis is merely cumulative of the information contained in the FBI 302s, which will be released pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3500 in the criminal case. Accordingly, there is no basis Case 1:09-cv-01043-RJS Document 109 Filed 12/18/09 Page 21 of 22 20 to pierce the work product privilege here.

When the government fails to turn over relevant statements, as it may have done here, the appropriate remedy action for the Court to take is to “strike from the record the testimony of the witness.” 18 U.S.C. section 3500(d). If the Court has questions about statements taken and written by Special Agent Headley, the Court is required to call her as a witness.

An order that Mr. Stockman must produce the Witness Interview Notes in this case would treat as ordinary discovery what the law treats as a special class of discovery. Compare 18 U.S.C. §3500 with Fed. R. Crim. Proc. 16.

As Barone explained in his moving brief, to the extent some future grand jury witnesses might be fearful that their testimony may be disclosed, such concerns should be given little weight, especially in light of Brady v. Maryland and its progeny and the Jencks Act, since no modern grand jury witnesses can ever reasonably expect complete secrecy of their testimony. See Palmer v. Estate of Walwyn Stuart, No. 02 Civ. 4076 (LTS)(GWG), 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21788, at *13 (S.D.N.Y. 2004); Anilao, 918 F. Supp. 2d at 179-180; Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); 18 U.S.C. § 3500. This is particularly true of “future” law enforcement officers who must testify “as part of their regular job duties as public servants” and                                                              3 Even more notably perhaps, defendants did not cite to or rely on Rehberg at all in their initial motion to dismiss papers and cited the case for the first time in their reply, which is improper.

The statute defines “statement” to include an adopted writing of the witness or an exact recording of an oral pronouncement, as well as any contemporaneously-made recording or transcription which amounts to “a substantially verbatim recital of a [witness’s] oral statement.” 18 U.S.C. § 3500(e); see United States v. Gonzalez–Melendez, 570 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 2009) (per curiam). Here, well in advance of Patel’s trial testimony, the government has produced the portions of the interviews relevant to the subject matter of his testimony, satisfying its Jencks Act obligations.1 To the extent that the redacted portions contain impeachment material whose disclosure is required by Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) and/or Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 (1963), the government will disclose such information at the required time.

Rather: In any criminal prosecution brought by the United States, no statement or report in the possession of the United States which was made by a Government witness or prospective Government witness (other than the defendant) shall be the subject of subpoena, discovery, or inspection until said witness has testified on direct examination in the trial of the case. 18 U.S.C. § 3500 (2012). As clearly stated in the statute and confirmed by this court, “§ 3500 has no application in civil cases.”

The Jencks Act provides in pertinent part: In any criminal prosecution brought by the United States, no statement or report in the possession of the United States which was made by a Government witness or prospective Government witness (other than the defendant) shall be the subject of subpoena, discovery, or inspection until said witness has testified on direct examination in the trial of the case. Case 1:12-cr-00626-ER Document 68 Filed 07/31/13 Page 25 of 36 25 18 U.S.C. § 3500. Courts in this Circuit have consistently held that the district court lacks the power to mandate early production of Jencks material.

b. Contorinis is a Criminal Defendant, and Will Be Provided With Information Regarding the Stephanou Proffer Sessions Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3500 (Factors 5 and 9). As Contorinis himself acknowledges, because he is a criminal defendant, he will ultimately be provided with information concerning the Stephanou Proffer Sessions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3500. Contorinis Brief, p. 12.

1 letter, the government agrees to instruct its agents to preserve any existing written notes. The government has provided and will continue to provide final typed or written statements of its trial witnesses, including agents, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3500. Case 1:08-cr-00106 Document 39 Filed 03/11/2008 Page 3 of 9 4 To the extent that this motion seeks materials beyond the agents’ notes of any witnesses or parties, including materials privileged by the work product doctrine, the government objects to Wright’s motion.

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.