Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
<=l
>, '1
Attachments: 2021-04-30 Gov't Letter to Manley.v2.docx
From:
(USANYS)
To:
) <a;
— just tried you. Do you want to start the phone tree when you are ready?
From:
To:
(USANYS)
Thanks—I'm at my desk phone
From:
(USANYS)
To:
Cc:
I <
E>
I'll be free in about 10. I'll start the phone tree
On Apr 29, 2021, at 10:22 AM,
I'm free til 11
From:
To:
(USANYS)
Cc:
) <
wrote:
See attached (you can search for the word
to see the relevant portions). Are you both free for a call this morning?
I'm free now until 11. Thanks.
From:
(USANYS)
To:
EFTA00022504
Cc:
Thanks,
. That makes sense. I included the question since I didn't write anything in response to that but agree with
you. We could write something at the end along the lines that the Government is available to answer questions or try to
address any concerns they have.
On Apr 28, 2021, at 10:00 PM,
<
> wrote:
Yup, this has been on my list today, I just haven't had the chance to review other trial witness 302s to determine
whether she's coming up at trial in a meaningful way. On the letter, thanks for taking a first pass. On the last
highlighted piece, I'm inclined not to respond directly — it feels odd giving legal procedure advice to a UK lawyer
representing a non-party in a letter copying the presiding judge. But let me know if you think there's anything we
should say about that.
On conferral, I'd suggest we just send them the letter tomorrow and ask them to let us know if there's anything we
need to discuss. If you want to let them know now that's what we're planning to do, that works.
From:
)
To:
(USANYS)
Cc:
Thanks MI. I never really dealt with
M,
would you please take the lead on this?
On Apr 28, 2021, at 8:35 PM,
(USANYS)
wrote:
MC — I can join you for a call on Manley's letter. I put together the start of a letter (attached) based on your notes in
the calendar invite and some other additions, but of course I imagine this may change based on our convo with
counsel.
To:
) <
>; Bobbi Sternheim <
; 'BOBBI C STERNHEIM'
>; Jeff Pagliuca <
>; Mark S. Cohen
Cc:
) <->;
(USANYS)
Thanks for reaching out. We probably are best served by sending you our position on defense disclosures by email.
We should be able to send that by Friday and can schedule a time to talk thereafter if you wish, with an eye towards
the joint filing on Monday.
We will confer with the team on the Speedy Trial issue and also get back to you on that.
EFTA00022505
Lastly, do you want to discuss anything regarding Mr. Manley's application to the Court? I believe we are to discuss
and then you are to write the Court by Friday. I am free tomorrow afternoon to discuss if you wish.
Thanks,
Laura
Laura A. Henninger I Partner
Haddon, Moroln & Foreman, P.C.
From:
To:
Bobbi Sternheim <
>;
'BOBBI C STERNHEIM' <
>; Laura Menninger <
; Jeff Pagliuca
<I
>; mark S. Cohen <
>
Cc:
) <
(USANYS)
Counsel,
Per Judge Nathan's Order (docket number 250), is there a time this week when you would be available for a call to
meet and confer regarding a proposed schedule for defense disclosure of witness statements pursuant to Rule 26.2?
Or if you would prefer to confer by email, would you please let us know your position?
Additionally, we intend to submit a letter to Judge Nathan requesting that time under the Speedy Trial Act be
excluded through the date the Court intends to set for trial of Counts One through Six of the S2 Indictment.
Although Judge Nathan previously excluded time through July 12, 2021, she has not reissued such an order since the
return of the S2 Indictment, and, of course, the date of trial may change. We therefore intend to seek a clarifying
order excluding time, both in light of the still-pending suppression motion, which automatically excludes time, and in
the interests of justice to allow for trial preparation. Would you please let us know whether you consent to the
exclusion?
Thank you,
Assistant United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
<2021-04-30 Gov't Letter to Manley.docx>
EFTA00022506