United States v. Collins

United States v. Collins

Opinion

 [*233]  OPINION & ORDER

VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge:

Currently pending before me are Defendants' pretrial motions. Each Defendant moves for an order directing the [**2]  United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (the "Government" or "USAO") to (1) conduct a Brady review of and/or produce certain files of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"), and materials seized or obtained from certain individuals, (2) produce Rule 16 material seized or obtained from certain individuals, and (3) produce the interview notes and the FBI interview reports ("FBI 302s") of two former staffer members of Defendant Christopher Collins. Defendant Christopher Collins also moves for an order compelling the Government to produce materials bearing on the Speech or Debate Clause of the United States Constitution.

Because the Superseding Indictment was not the product of a joint investigation between the Government and the SEC, and the Government does not have the legal right to search the non-responsive materials in, or produce the entire contents of, the devices and/or accounts at issue, Defendants' motions related to the SEC materials and Brady/Rule 16 materials is denied. With regard to the two FBI 302s and related notes, the Government fulfilled its Brady obligation by disclosing the substance of the exculpatory statements of the two former staff members. With regard to Defendant Christopher [**3]  Collins's motion related to the Speech or Debate Clause, because Defendant Collins has failed to demonstrate (1) that he is legally entitled to the discovery he seeks, (2) that the Speech or Debate Clause was violated by the Government in obtaining either the indictment or superseding indictment, or (3) that the Government—with  [*234]  the exception of materials related to the Office of Congressional Ethics ("OCE") investigation related to Defendant Collins—intends to use documents or elicit testimony that implicate the Speech or Debate Clause, Defendant Christopher Collins's motion related to the Speech or Debate Clause is denied. With regard to the OCE investigation, I find that the mere fact that Defendant Christopher Collins was (1) the subject of an investigation by the OCE related to Innate Immunotherapeutics Limited ("Innate") and (2) interviewed in connection with that OCE investigation, are not protected by the Speech or Debate Clause.

I. Background¹

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.