Document 42

Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 42 Filed 08/06/19 Page 1 of 10 1 j7v2espC kjc UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, New York, N.Y. v. 19 Cr. 490(RMB) JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. -------------------------------x Conference July 31, 2019 11:05 a.m. Before: HON. RICHARD M. BERMAN, District Judge APPEARANCES GEOFFREY S. BERMAN United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York BY: ALISON J. MOE ALEXANDER ROSSMILLER MAURENE R. COMEY Assistant United States Attorneys MARTIN G. WEINBERG Attorney for Defendant STEPTOE & JOHNSON, LLP Attorneys for Defendant BY: MICHAEL C. MILLER SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00000612 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 42 Filed 08/17/20 Page 1 of 5 COHEN & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 +1 212 957 7600 phone www.cohengresser.com Mark S. Cohen +1 (212) 957-7600 mcohen@cohengresser.com Christian R. Everdell +1 (212) 957-7600 ceverdell@cohengresser.com August 17, 2020 VIA ECF The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Dear Judge Nathan: On behalf of our client, Ghislaine Maxwell, we respectfully submit this letter to reply to the government's letter, dated August 13, 2020, responding to Ms. Maxwell's request that the Court (i) direct the government to disclose the identities of the three alleged victims referenced in the indictment, subject to the restrictions of the protective order in this case; and (ii) order the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") to provide Ms. Maxwell with increased access to the discovery materials ("Government's Response" or "Gov't Resp.") (Dkt. 41). With regard to the issue of alleged victims' identities, the government concedes, as it must, that this Court has the authority and discretion to order the relief sought, but claims that Ms. Maxwell's application should be denied as untimely and without merit. (Gov't Resp. at 2-4). Instead, the government asserts that the appropriate and timely way for Ms. Maxwell to seek confirmation of their identities is through a request for a bill of particulars, which should be filed in December 2020. (Id. at 3). The government then notes that it would oppose such a motion, which it claims should also be denied. (Id.). The government concludes that it will finally provide confirmation of their identities in the 3500 material and a witness list to be provided shortly before trial. (Id. at 4). The upshot of this is clear: in the government's view, Ms. Maxwell should not know the identity of the three witnesses referenced in the indictment until at best just before trial, and should have to spend the next eleven months (or longer) trying to conduct a defense investigation, in a case in which she is presumed innocent, without having this information. This information is critical to conducting a meaningful defense investigation, given that the DOJ-OGR-00001724 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 42 Filed 08/06/19 Page 2 of 10 2 j7v2espC kjc 1 THE COURT: So, today's conference was scheduled at the end of the July 18 court conference hearing on that date. 2 I thought that we would devote at least the -- well, probably most of today's proceeding to talking about the schedule in 3 this case, and I asked the lawyers to get together and see if 4 they could come up with a mutually agreeable schedule, which 5 would include trial date, motion practice, discovery, etc. 6 7 Does anybody want to let me know how you made out? 8 9 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. 10 We have conferred with defense counsel and talked 11 about a proposed schedule for this case. So we are prepared to 12 propose to the court today a schedule for discovery, for 13 discovery-related motions, for pretrial motions, and we are 14 also prepared to talk about setting a possible trial date. 15 THE COURT: Okay. What have you got in mind? 16 MS. MOE: So, with respect to discovery, we would 17 propose a discovery deadline of October 31 to complete 18 discovery, with one exception. There are materials from 19 devices seized from the defendant's residence in New York, and 20 the F.B.I. is beginning the process of reviewing that data. 21 In discussing that with defense counsel, we have begun 22 to discuss a process for a privilege-review protocol. It's 23 possible that process may take longer than October 31. But 24 aside from that universe of documents, we would propose setting 25 a schedule of October 31 as a deadline for discovery. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00000613 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 42 Filed 08/17/20 Page 2 of 5 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan August 17, 2020 Page 2 indictment alleges 25-year-old conduct that supposedly occurred on unspecified dates in multiple locations on different continents, and involves numerous alleged victims of Jeffrey Epstein. Moreover, the government's position is based on the claimed privacy rights of the alleged victims, now all adults, who may well have sued Mr. Epstein and/or Ms. Maxwell in public civil actions or otherwise identified themselves by name in public fora. As discussed below and in our opening letter, under the relevant legal standards, the relief sought can and should be ordered here. With regard to Ms. Maxwell's conditions of confinement, the government asserts, in essence, that such matters should be left not to this Court, but to the discretion of the BOP. We do not agree. Under the BOP's original plan, Ms. Maxwell would have been forced to choose between reviewing the voluminous discovery in this case, on the one hand, or taking a shower, eating a meal or exercising, on the other. That would not be consistent with her right to meaningfully review materials and prepare for trial. Indeed, the very filing of the present motion apparently prompted the BOP to make certain of the changes the defense had requested. We respectfully ask the Court to confirm these changes in an order, along with the other relief requested. 1. Disclosure of Alleged Victim Identities The government concedes that this Court has the authority to order it to disclose to defense counsel the identities of the three individuals referenced in the indictment. (Gov't Resp. at 2). As we understand it, these three individuals are the core of the government's case against Ms. Maxwell. Yet, according to the government, the defense must make assumptions about their identities until they are finally revealed a few weeks prior to trial. If that occurs, it is very possible that the defense will waste the next several months investigating someone whose name appears in the discovery, but who is not one of the three alleged victims, and whom the government does not even intend to call as a witness at trial. Indeed, the defense has again conducted a high-level review of the second discovery production and, at first glance, there does not appear to be any information that specifically identifies these three witnesses. According to the government, the two productions they have made "constitute the vast majority of initial discovery." (Id. at 2). But the defense still does not know for certain who these individuals are and will likely not know until the eve of trial, if the government has its way. That is fundamentally inconsistent with the notion of a fair trial, especially when it is inherently difficult to investigate instances of abuse that allegedly occurred 25 years ago (even when the identity of the alleged victim is known), and when the alleged victims do not have a strong countervailing privacy interest to protect, as discussed below.1 1 The government's attempt at a compromise solution—providing the birth months and years of the alleged victims—is insufficient. (Gov't Resp. at 2 n.2). Such partial information only helps confirm the identity of victims—is insufficient. DOJ-OGR-00001725 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 42 Filed 08/06/19 Page 3 of 10 3 j7v2espC kjc 1 For discovery-related motions, we would propose that the defense file any motions that they are aware of relating to discovery, to include motions relating to the nonprosecution agreement, by September 13 -- THE COURT: By when? MS. MOE: September 13, your Honor -- that the government be permitted to respond by October 4; with any reply due on October 11, as necessary. Of course we understand that if the defense comes to have additional motions related to discovery based on the ongoing discovery process that we will confer and propose an additional briefing schedule beyond that, as necessary. But with respect to motions that the defense is already aware of, including the NPA, that is the schedule that we would propose at this time. Regarding pretrial motions, your Honor, we would propose that the defense file their motions by January 10, that the government be permitted to respond by February 10, and that any replies be due on or before February 24. THE COURT: Got it. MS. MOE: And finally, your Honor, we are prepared to discuss a trial date in this case. The government is asking the court to set a trial date in this matter. We would propose that the court schedule this matter for trial in June of next year, and we estimate that the trial would take approximately SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00000614 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 42 Filed 08/17/20 Page 3 of 5 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan August 17, 2020 Page 3 The government relies on two grounds to justify its position: (i) the need "to protect the privacy of the alleged victims," and (ii) the "lack of any legal precedent" granting such a request. (Gov't Resp. at 4). Both of these reasons are unpersuasive. As to the privacy interest, the government glosses over the facts and circumstances of this case, which significantly diminish any privacy interest that may exist. As we stated in our initial letter motion, many of Mr. Epstein's alleged victims are actively litigating civil suits against Ms. Maxwell and have made public statements identifying themselves by name in court proceedings, to the press, and in other public fora. Although we cannot say for certain whether the three individuals referenced in the indictment have done this—because at this point we can only guess who they are—it seems likely that, they, too, fall into this category. Furthermore, although these individuals claim to have been minors when the conduct alleged in the indictment occurred roughly 25 years ago, they are no longer minors; they are now adults in their early 40s. Nor has the government argued that these alleged victims would be subject to any risk of intimidation or that they would likely refuse to appear for trial if their identities were disclosed. Hence, any privacy interest that may exist is diminished and should not supersede Ms. Maxwell's right to prepare her defense to ensure a fair trial. See United States v. Warme, No. 09CR19A, 2009 WL 427111, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 2009) (ordering government to disclose identity of alleged rape victim and stating, "Inasmuch as the government has not demonstrated that disclosing the identity to the defendant would subject the victim to a significant risk, or to increase the likelihood that victim will refuse to appear or testify, the interest of the defendant in being able to prepare a defense outweighs the government's interest in keeping the name of [the alleged victim] undisclosed.") The government's assertion that there is no legal precedent for Ms. Maxwell's request is incorrect. (Gov't Resp. at 4). The case law in this Circuit is unambiguous that the Court has the power to grant the requested relief. As we stated in our initial letter, the Second Circuit formally recognized that district courts have the authority to order the disclosure of the identities of government witnesses in United States v. Cannone, 598 F.2d 296, 301 (2d Cir. 1975). Although Cannone, itself, found that the district court abused its discretion in ordering the disclosure of witness identities under the facts of that case, the government acknowledges that this Court has the authority under Cannone to issue such an order in this case. (Gov't Resp. at 2). The defense also cited in its initial letter United States v. Warme, a directly analogous precedent in which a district court in this Circuit relied on Cannone and its progeny to order the government to disclose the identity of a rape victim to the defendant roughly one month after indictment—the exact same relief that Ms. Maxwell requests here. (Dkt. 38 at 3–4). In Warme, the defendant asked the district court to order the government to disclose the identity of a victim who was allegedly raped by the defendant a little over two years before the indictment was filed, someone if you already know who that person is. Moreover, it raises the question of why the government is unwilling to go the extra step and simply provide the defense with the actual birthdays of the alleged victims. DOJ-OGR-00001726 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 42 Filed 08/06/19 Page 4 of 10 4 j7v2espC kjc four to six weeks, and so that trial date would carry into July. And I understand that the defense has some comments about that proposal, but that's the government's proposal with respect to a trial date. THE COURT: Okay. Let me hear from the defense. Do I understand it correctly that, with the exception of the trial date, those dates are agreeable? MR. WEINBERG: Those dates are agreeable, your Honor. THE COURT: Counsel, whatever you wish to add, that would be fine. MR. WEINBERG: We would ask the court to set a preliminary trial date immediately after Labor Day. I say preliminary because we want time to assess Mr. Epstein's -- THE COURT: This year? MR. WEINBERG: Yes. THE COURT: This Labor Day. Okay. MR. WEINBERG: We want time to assess Mr. Epstein's ability to . . . (Counsel confer) MR. WEINBERG: I'm sorry. I am being told that your Honor was inquiring as to the year. Let me -- THE COURT: Yes. I thought you wanted a speedy trial, and so -- MR. WEINBERG: Not with a four- to six-week trial with discovery coming in October, Judge. I apologize for being W SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00000615 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 42 Filed 08/17/20 Page 4 of 5 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan August 17, 2020 Page 4 in stark contrast to the 25-year-old conduct alleged in this case. Warme, 2009 WL 427111, at *1-2. The district court recognized "the sensitive nature of the charges and the difficulties facing rape victims," but found that "the defendant's ability to adequately prepare a defense against this charge [would be] significantly compromised without being advised of the identity of the alleged victim." Id. at *2. The district court found that disclosure was appropriate because, as in this case (i) the defendant was seeking disclosure of the identity of an alleged victim who was the basis for a specific crime charged in the indictment, and not just a government witness; (ii) the indictment did not state "the exact dates" of the alleged abuse or the prior encounters between the defendant and the alleged victim; and (iii) the government did not articulate any basis to conclude that the alleged victim would be subject to intimidation or would refuse to appear at trial as a result of the disclosure. Id. For the same reasons articulated in Warme, this Court should order the government to disclose immediately the identities of three alleged victims referenced in the indictment, subject to the terms of the protective order.2 2. Ms. Maxwell's Conditions of Confinement and Access to Discovery The government asserts that Ms. Maxwell's conditions of confinement should be left to the discretion of the BOP. (Gov't Resp. at 4). But the BOP cannot be the sole arbiter on these issues if the conditions of Ms. Maxwell's confinement impact her right to a fair trial and to meaningfully prepare her defense. Indeed, under the BOP's original plan, Ms. Maxwell would have been forced to choose between taking a shower and reviewing the voluminous discovery in this case. It is only because the defense filed its motion that the BOP modified its original plan and gave Ms. Maxwell increased access to the discovery two days later. We now understand, and the government has confirmed, that Ms. Maxwell can review discovery from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. every day of the week. (Id. at 5). We respectfully ask the Court to confirm these changes in an order to the BOP. However, the defense continues to believe that Ms. Maxwell is being subjected to uniquely onerous conditions of confinement because of the death of Mr. Epstein in BOP custody. For example, Ms. Maxwell continues to be surveilled 24 hours a day by security cameras and is 2 The government attempts to distinguish Warme by asserting that, unlike Warme, the indictment in this case "describes relevant time periods and events, including referring to the defendant's conversations with victims, interactions with victims, and specific relevant locations." (Gov't Resp. at 3). That is incorrect. In fact, the indictment in Warme was far more specific as to the dates of the relevant events, alleging that the rape took place "sometime in and around October of 2006." Warme, 2009 WL 427111, at *2. By contrast, the indictment in this case alleges vague instances of "grooming" that supposedly took place over the course of a year (in the case of Victim 2), two years (in the case of Victim 3), or even four years (in the case of Victim 1). Those are hardly "exact dates." The criminal complaint in Warme also alleged specific interactions between the defendant and the alleged victim; namely, that they "had met and exchanged phone numbers perhaps as long as 10 months prior to the alleged rape." Id. Nevertheless, the district court held that the defendant's right to prepare his defense required disclosure of the identity of the alleged victim and outweighed any privacy interest that the victim might have. Id. DOJ-OGR-00001727 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 42 Filed 08/06/19 Page 5 of 10 5 j7v2espC kjc 1 imprecise. Labour Day 2020 or immediately thereafter. And I make that recommendation -- we haven't received the discovery yet. Understandably, it is coming, and I'm not in any way contesting that there has been a delay, but we haven't had an opportunity to start reviewing what the government has predicted to be over a million pages of discovery with Mr. Epstein and to assess Mr. Epstein's ability to exercise his constitutional right, while at MCC, in assisting counsel prepare for a very difficult case that addresses events that it is alleged occurred 14 to 17 years ago. THE COURT: Okay. MR. WEINBERG: So, we need time to receive a million pages of discovery and to prepare to defend a four- to six-week trial, when a lot of the immediate attention is going to be on the very unique and complex constitutional issues connected to the nonprosecution agreement, our contention that the government's allegations are inextricably intertwined and constitutionally barred by the NPA. There are double jeopardy issues both connected to the conspiracy count, which looks to be an overlap with one of the charges that was expressly within the immunity provisions in the NPA. We are going to be spending a lot of time, and that's why I agreed with the government that we should make early discovery motions on the NPA-related issues, on double-jeopardy-related issues, so that we could not only facially brief the motion to dismiss, but SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00000616 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 42 Filed 08/17/20 Page 5 of 5 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan August 17, 2020 Page 5 under constant observation by multiple prison guards.3 She is also still being awakened several times in the middle of the night. Even on more routine matters, Ms. Maxwell's treatment has been worse than other pretrial detainees. For example, Ms. Maxwell has no access to email and has been given 30 minutes per month for personal phone calls, far fewer than the 500 minutes granted to other pretrial detainees since the COVID-19 crisis. Unlike defendants in the general population, she does not have a desk or a writing surface where she can take notes when reviewing the discovery. And until recently, Ms. Maxwell was denied access to the prison commissary for no apparent reason. We respect that the BOP needs to ensure the orderly operation of the MDC. But Ms. Maxwell's conditions of confinement are unique to her and seem punitive rather than anything necessary to ensure that the MDC as a whole is running smoothly. Accordingly, we respectfully request that, going forward, Ms. Maxwell be monitored in the same manner as other pretrial detainees and that the Court order the BOP to grant Ms. Maxwell the same privileges given to other detainees.4 * * * For the reasons set forth above, we respectfully submit that the Court should grant Ms. Maxwell's motion. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Christian R. Everdell Mark S. Cohen Christian R. Everdell COHEN & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor New York, New York 10022 (212) 957-7600 cc: All counsel of record (via ECF) 3 The defense recently learned that some of these prison guards were, in fact, BOP psychologists who were observing Ms. Maxwell and evaluating her for hours each day without her knowledge. We are aware of no other pretrial detainee receiving such treatment. 4 In our original letter, the defense asked the Court to order the BOP to release Ms. Maxwell into the general population because we had been informed that Ms. Maxwell would not receive certain privileges, like access to a desk and the prison commissary, unless she were housed there. As long as Ms. Maxwell is monitored in the same manner, and receives the same privileges as other pretrial detainees, it is not necessary to move her to the general population. DOJ-OGR-00001728 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 42 Filed 08/06/19 Page 6 of 10 6 j7v2espC kjc 1 have the discovery, the subfacial discovery, if you will, so 2 that we could make a comprehensive briefing along the lines of 3 the schedule for motions. 4 THE COURT: That's what I was going to suggest, if 5 there is a time period when you could put it all together, as 6 it were, and there is a lot of flexibility. So I will leave 7 these dates, you know, for now. 8 With respect to the trial date, I could accommodate 9 either June or September of 2020. The issue is not so much as, 10 from my point of view, when you are all ready, but what part of 11 the calendar I block out. So is it realistic to block out time 12 in June? 13 MR. WEINBERG: I think it is -- I don't want to have 14 the court block out a six-week time and then come to the court 15 in March and say we need a continuance and risk a September 16 date. 17 THE COURT: Got it. Okay. So a September date, you 18 are saying, sounds like it certainly is realistic. 19 MR. WEINBERG: Thirteen months sounds like the amount 20 of time that we would ordinarily need to prepare a case of this 21 magnitude and scope. 22 THE COURT: All right. That is fine for me. 23 Just while we are taking care of details, a speedy 24 trial issue or application? Why don't we extend it to 25 September of 2020? SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00000617 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 42 Filed 08/06/19 Page 7 of 10 7 j7v2espC kjc 1 MR. WEINBERG: This case certainly meets all of the statutory criteria for complexity and we would agree to that extension, Judge. 2 3 MS. MOE: Your Honor, may I briefly be heard with respect to the trial date? 4 5 THE COURT: Oh, sure. You know, it does sound like it is kind of premature, but I'm happy to hear you. It is often the defense that is ahead of the government, or not often, but equally, but here it is the other way around. So if the defense is not ready, it would be my practice to defer to the defense, but I don't know that it is fixed in stone either way. But, sure, I am happy to hear you. 6 7 MS. MOE: Your Honor, by way of background, we had initially proposed to the defense a May trial date. We think that there is a public interest in bringing this case to trial as swiftly as manageable. We understand, given their concerns in wanting to have more time, we proposed a date in June as a compromise position. We understand if the defense has indicated that they need additional time. We are sensitive to those concerns. But we do have a concern about the notion of setting a September trial date and that that trial would be preliminary or as a placeholder. Thirteen months is a considerable amount of time for a case of this nature to go to trial; and, again, given the time period of the charged conduct and the length of time that's passed, we do think that there is 8 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00000618 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 42 Filed 08/06/19 Page 8 of 10 8 j7v2espC kjc 1 a public interest in scheduling a fixed trial date in this case. Of course we understand if issues arise in the interim, we will address that as it occurs, but we do think it makes sense at this juncture to set a firm trial date. We don't think that any delay in this case is in the public interest. 6 THE COURT: Counsel. 7 MR. WEINBERG: We think that the delay in bringing this charge, your Honor, the natural corollary of that is to make it more difficult, not easier, for us to defend Mr. Epstein. For instance, there are certain sealed files for potential witnesses that we would have to go to other courts to seek to unseal. There is an NPA to litigate. This case is not your ordinary 1591 case. A case of four to six weeks is not the ordinary amount of time the government takes to prosecute, whether it is old or new cases. We need 13 months. I'm trying to make a principled argument, Judge, that that would be a schedule that we would try our best to meet, conditioned on our ability to work with Mr. Epstein under the current conditions. 19 Thank you, sir. 20 THE COURT: Okay. 21 So, we are going to monitor the case from now until then anyway, so I think everybody will be in a better position to know what is realistic with respect to a trial date. I will exclude time from today through, let's say, June 8, but that, of course, is without prejudice to hearing from the defense and SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00000619 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 42 Filed 08/06/19 Page 9 of 10 9 j7v2espC kjc the government as to actually where things stand. Long before then we will know. So we will have a conference, or several, between now and then. Let's see where everybody is as the months go by, and then we will know when we can effectively hold the trial. So I am going to find, under 18 United States Code § 3161, that the request for adjournment, joined in by both sides, is appropriate and warrants exclusion of the adjourned time from Speedy Trial calculations. I further find that the exclusion is designed to prevent any possible miscarriage of justice, to facilitate these proceedings, including extensive pretrial preparation, and to guarantee effective representation of and preparation by counsel for both sides, and thus the need for exclusion and the ends of justice outweigh the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial pursuant to 18 United States Code § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B). So that exclusion goes to June 8, 2020 preliminarily. Counsel, is it your thought that these motions would be on submission or did you want to have oral argument with respect to any aspect of them? MR. WEINBERG: We would seek oral argument, your Honor. THE COURT: So let's set October 28, 2019 for oral argument, and I am tentatively reserving some time on my calendar, as I said before, on June 8, 2020, but I will have a SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00000620 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 42 Filed 08/06/19 Page 10 of 10 10 j7v2espC kjc 1 much better feel for where things are long before that and 2 certainly I would say on October 28 we would have a much 3 clearer picture of how things stand. 4 So there you have it. Did you have -- go ahead. 5 MS. MOE: Just to clarify, your Honor, what time would 6 the court like the parties to appear on October 28? 7 THE COURT: 10 a.m. 8 MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor. 9 THE COURT: And the June 8 date is 9 a.m. Okay? 10 MR. WEINBERG: Would your Honor want to schedule an 11 argument on the substantive motions that will be fully briefed 12 before the court on February 24? 13 THE COURT: Yup. 14 So let's schedule that oral argument for March 12, 15 2020, at 10 a.m. 16 Great. So anything anybody else has to talk about? 17 MR. WEINBERG: Not from the defence, your Honor. 18 MS. MOE: Not from the government, your Honor. Thank 19 you. 20 THE COURT: Okay. 21 MR. WEINBERG: Thank you very much, sir. 22 THE COURT: Nice to see you all. 23 oOo 24 25 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00000621