Opinion
02: 09-cr-00005.
August 20, 2010
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Defendant filed a MOTION FOR FULL DISCLOSURE OF REDACTED DOCUMENTS (Document No. 102), in which she requested the immediate disclosure of any and all redacted material from twenty-one documents which had been provided to her in discovery. In the alternative, Defendant requested the government produce a "redaction log," and an in camera review by the Court of the challenged documents.
By Memorandum Order dated June 10, 2010, the government was ordered to produce to the Court for in-camera inspection, on or before June 21, 2010, the redacted and unredacted copies of the twenty-one (21) reports in question. The government provided the Court with the challenged documents in a timely fashion and the Court has completed its independent review of same to determine whether Defendant is entitled to the pretrial disclosure of the redacted material.
The Court has reviewed the documents submitted for inspection by the government to determine if they are discoverable pursuant to Rule 16(a)(1)(E), or as exculpatory evidence, Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), or whether such documents constitute statements of government witnesses that relate to the subject matter of the witnesses' testimony and do not need to be produced at this time pursuant to the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500. The Court has compared each unredacted document with the redacted document produced in discovery.
Based on its independent review, the Court finds and rules that the material redacted from the challenged documents is not material to the preparation of Defendant's defense and is not required to be disclosed under Rule 16(a)(1)(E), under Brady, or under the Jencks Act.
Therefore, Defendant's motion requesting the government to produce the unredacted documents is DENIED.
So ORDERED.