An example of cooperation is the "coordination in conducting witness interviews and otherwise investigating the facts of the case." United States v. Martoma , 990 F. Supp. 2d 458, 461 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). Another factor is whether the other agency "reviewed documents gathered by or shared documents with the prosecution[.]"

Whether the Government's discovery obligations extend to materials in possession of another government agency turns on whether the Government and the other agency conducted a “joint investigation.” United States v. Martoma, 990 F.Supp.2d 458, 460 (S.D.N.Y. 2014); see also United States v. Gupta, 848 F.Supp.2d 491, 493 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)

Def. Mem. at 15-16. To support its argument, CCI cites to U.S. v. Martoma, 990 F. Supp. 2d 458 (S.D.N.Y. 2014), which required the DOJ to search the files of the SEC for exculpatory material in a criminal case on the ground that the SEC and DOJ had conducted a "joint investigation" in that case. Id. at 461-62; see also U.S. v. Gupta, 848 F. Supp. 2d 491, 494 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) ("it is enough" for Brady purposes "that the agencies are engaged in joint fact-gathering, even if they are making separate investigatory or charging decisions") (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

United States v. Morell, 524 F.2d 550, 555 (2d Cir. 1975). “Courts in this District apply [a] ‘joint investigation' analysis in assessing [prosecutors'] obligations with respect to Brady and Giglio material held by [other government agencies].” United States v. Martoma, 990 F.Supp.2d 458, 460 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).

prosecutorial strategy, or (5) accompanied the prosecution to court proceedings. See Blaszczak, 308 F.Supp.3d at 741-42; see also United States v. Martoma, 990 F.Supp.2d 458, 461 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (relying on the joint conduct of interviews, exchange of documents, coordination of deposition efforts, and communications regarding the status of fact-gathering to find a joint investigation).

Similarly, in United States v. Martoma, the issue before the court was “whether the USAO's Brady and Giglio obligations extend[ed] to communications between the SEC” and counsel for two cooperating witnesses who were expected to testify at the defendant's trial. United States v. Martoma, 990 F.Supp.2d 458, 459-60 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).

United States v. Alexandre, 2023 WL 416405, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2023) (quoting United States v. Martoma, 990 F.Supp.2d 458, 460 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)).

Whether the Government's discovery obligations extend to materials in possession of another government agency turns on whether the Government and the other agency conducted a “joint investigation.” United States v. Martoma, 990 F.Supp.2d 458, 460 (S.D.N.Y. 2014); see also United States v. Gupta, 848 F.Supp.2d 491, 493 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (“Where the [United States Attorney's Office] conducts a joint investigation with another state or federal agency, courts in this Circuit have held that the prosecutor's duty extends to reviewing the materials in the possession of that other agency for Brady evidence.”)

Thus, where two prosecution teams jointly conduct a limited number of investigative activities, those activities, without more, do not necessarily create an obligation under Brady for either team to search the entirety of the other team's file. Instead, each prosecution team will have “an obligation to review the documents arising from [the] joint efforts to determine whether there is Brady material that must be disclosed.” Id. (emphasis added); see also, e.g., United States v. Carroll, No. 19-CR-545 (CM), 2020 WL 1862446, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2020) (noting that “joint fact gathering” does not necessarily “give rise to an obligation by the Government to review the [other agency's] entire investigative file”); United States v. Martoma, 990 F.Supp.2d 458, 461-62 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (ordering the Government to review a subset of another agency's files relating to cooperating witnesses). In determining whether another government entity acted as part of the prosecution team for all or part of a given case, courts in this Circuit consider five primary factors: “whether the other [entity] (1) participated in the prosecution's witness interviews, (2) was involved in presenting the case to the grand jury, (3) reviewed documents gathered by or shared documents with the prosecution, (4) played a role in the development of prosecutorial strategy, or (5) accompanied the prosecution to court proceedings.”

Where a Brady claim is premised on another agency or office's possession of alleged exculpatory material, a defendant must show that the two offices or agencies were engaged in a joint investigation. See United States v. Maitoma, 990 F.Supp.2d 458, 460 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) ('"Where the USAO conducts a "joint investigation" with another state or federal agency, courts in this Circuit have held that the prosecutor's duty extends to reviewing the materials in the possession of that other agency for Brady evidence.'" (quoting United States v. Gupta, 848 F.Supp.2d 491, 493 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)))