The Government states that it provided initial and supplemental discovery responses (Docket No. 41, Gov't Response at 1–2, 2–12, Exs. B, C, D, E, F, G, H). The Government next addressed particular discovery requests to which the defense now objects (id.
at 2–12). As for particularization, the Government stated that a Bill of Particulars is not necessary as to the forfeiture count in the Indictment since the assets subject to forfeiture were specified in the Indictment (id.
at 17–18), but outlined the gross proceeds traceable to the offenses alleged (as sought by defendant) (id.
at 18). The real estate and motor vehicles identified in the forfeiture count are substitute properties to the amount of gross proceeds derived from the offense (id.
at 19). The Government argues that the forfeiture count is sufficient (id.
at 21–22). The Government, however, does not address defendant's request for a Bill of Particulars as to substantive count I. As for surplussage, the Government argues that the exacting standard for striking surplussage was not met here (id.
at 19–20), where a motion to strike should be granted only if it is clear that the allegations are irrelevant to the charge and are inflammatory or prejudicial, see
United States v. Scarpa, 913 F.2d 993, 1013 (2d Cir.1990).