*1 A grand jury in the Northern District of California charged the defendant Marcus Andrade with wire fraud and money laundering (on promotion and concealment theories). The fraud involved Mr. Andrade's allegedly false statements to induce purchasers to buy tokens for his cryptocurrency AML Bitcoin and his alleged misappropriation of their money.[1] The indictment alleges that a co-schemer worked with Mr. Andrade to promote AML Bitcoin and worked on marketing and public relations for AML Bitcoin.[2] The co-schemer is Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist, who pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud predicated on his public-relations role with AML Bitcoin and his failing to register as a lobbyist in violation of the Lobbying Disclosure Act.[3]

Mr. Andrade moved to compel discovery under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(1)(E) and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1983): (1) documents withheld — as potentially attorney-client privileged — from an already-produced image of Jack Abramoff's phone; (2) images of Alexander Levin's devices (without any AEO designation); (3) extraction and other information from Paul Erickson's phone; (4) documents related to the searches and seizures of the Levin, Erickson, and Marina Butina devices; and (5) any statements of Levinson, Erickson, and Butina.[4] The government resists the discovery on the grounds that (1) Mr. Andrade has no basis to ask the government to redo its privilege review and has not shown that the withheld information is material, (2) the Levin devices are cumulative, (3) the FBI has no extractions from the Erickson devices, which were destroyed, and the Erickson case in any event had nothing to do with cryptocurrency, (4) it will produce information about Butina (but not Levin and Erickson because there is no relevance), and (5) only statements about Mr. Andrade and his company AML Bitcoin are relevant (and only Butina made a statement, which the government produced), and in any event, there are no statements by Levin.[5]

The court orders the following: (1) it adopts Mr. Andrade's proposed compromise of starting with Robert Abramoff and orders the government to produce any items that are not privileged (and the court suggests some processes below to mitigate the burden); (2) the government must produce the Levin device without an AEO designation; (3) if the government has the Erickson extractions or information about them, then it must produce them, but given its representation that the case file has been destroyed in this unrelated case on the FBI's normal destruction schedule, the court can order no further relief; (4) limiting productions to references to AML Bitcoin or Mr. Andrade is too narrow and requires a broader production of information; and (5) the same analysis applies to producing the statements.

1. Brady v. Maryland

*2 In Brady v. Maryland, the Supreme Court held that “the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment.” 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1983); see Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154 (1972); Comstock v. Humphries, 786 F.3d 701, 708 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281-82 (1999)). Favorable evidence includes information that would be “advantageous” or would “tend to call the government's case into doubt.” Comstock, 786 F.3d at 708. That the evidence may have minimal value is not relevant to the determination of whether it is favorable. Id. (concluding that the state court's finding that a statement's impeachment value was “minimal” was “contrary to” Brady).

Brady also requires disclosure of evidence that could be used to impeach government witnesses, especially where the witness's testimony is an important part of the government's case. Wearry v. Cain, 136 S. Ct. 1002, 1004–06 (2016) (Brady violation because the undisclosed impeachment evidence was material and the State's evidence was a “house of cards” that relied on witness testimony); Giglio, 405 U.S.at 150–51, 154–55; United States v. Jernigan, 451 F.3d 1027, 1030 (9th Cir. 2006) (to be subject to disclosure under Brady, information must be exculpatory or impeaching and must be material to a defendant's guilt or punishment), rev'd on other grounds, 492 F.3d 1050 (2007).

Evidence is material if “there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449, 469–70 (2009). “A reasonable probability does not mean that the defendant ‘would more likely than not have received a different verdict with the evidence,’ only that the likelihood of a different result is great enough to ‘undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial.’ ” Smith v. Cain, 565 U.S. 73, 75 (2012) (quoting Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 434 (1995)). Because finding a Brady violation requires the appellate court to conclude that disclosure might have affected the outcome of the trial, a violation occurs only if the withheld evidence is admissible or would have led to admissible evidence. United States v. Sudikoff, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1196, 1198 (C.D. Cal. 1999) (citing Coleman v. Calderon, 150 F.3d 1105, 1117–18 (9th Cir.), rev'd on other grounds, 525 U.S. 141 (1998)).

Materiality is defined in terms of suppressed evidence considered collectively, not item by item. Kyles, 514 U.S. at 436 (1995); Barker v. Fleming, 423 F.3d 1085, 1099 (9th Cir. 2005). When there is uncertainty about the materiality of a piece of evidence, “the prudent prosecutor will resolve doubtful questions in favor of disclosure.” United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 108 (1976). Also, whether disclosure would have influenced the outcome of a trial can be determined only after the trial. Only then can the “total effect of all the inculpatory evidence [ ] be weighed against the presumed effect of the undisclosed Brady material.” Sudikoff, 36 F. Supp. 2d at 1198–99.

2. Rule 16(a)(1)(E)

The government must allow a defendant to “inspect and to copy or photograph books, papers, documents, data, photographs, tangible objects, buildings or places, or copies or portions of these items, if the item is within the government's possession, custody, or control and: (i) the item is material to preparing the defense.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(E).

“Materiality is a low threshold; it is satisfied so long as the ‘the information [ ] would have helped’ [the defendant] prepare a defense.[ ] Information is material even if it simply causes a defendant to ‘completely abandon’ a planned defense and “take an entirely different path.’ ” “The test is not whether the discovery is admissible at trial, but whether the discovery may assist” a defendant “in formulating a defense, including leading to admissible evidence.” United States v. Soto-Zuninga, 837 F.3d 992, 1002–03 (9th Cir. 2016) (reversing the district court and holding that a defendant was entitled to discovery about the government's drug-smuggling investigation because it “is possible that discovery about the investigation might help” the defendant identify passengers who might have planted drugs in his car).

*3 It “behooves the government to interpret the disclosure requirement broadly and turn over whatever evidence it has pertaining to the case.” United States v. Hernandez-Meza, 720 F.3d 760, 768 (9th Cir. 2013) (cleaned up) (in a criminal trial for illegal reentry, the defendant's mother's naturalization certificate should have been disclosed under Rule 16(a)(1)(E)(i) as material because an element of the offense of illegal reentry is alienage) (citing United States v. Doe, 705 F.3d 1134, 1151 (9th Cir 2013)).

The government's citation to United States v. Marshall does not alter this standard.[6]

First, Hernandez-Meza is binding authority that rests its standard on the earlier Doe case. Other Ninth Circuit decisions apply the standard. See, e.g., Soto-Zuninga, 837 F.3d at 1003.

Second, Marshall involved an earlier iteration of the Rule and a different context. The discovery issue there was the defendant's request for LAPD reports for six police officers “pertaining to all defendants in certain other cases in which said officers had arrested certain persons during one month after and five months” before the arrests in Marshall and where the officers obtained consent to search or claimed that evidence was in plain view. 532 F.2d 1279, 1284 (9th Cir. 1976). Marshall argued that discovery of the reports was “his only opportunity to effectively impeach the government's main witness” (one of the six officers). Id. An earlier version of the rule — Rule 16(b) — applied and had a different standard: it required “a showing of materiality to the preparation of the defense and that the request [was] reasonable.” Id. Citing Fourth and Fifth Circuit cases from 1973 and 1975, the Marshall court held that this “requirement of materiality ... signifi[ed] that the pre-trial disclosure of the evidence in question must enable the accused to substantially alter the quantum of proof in his favor.” Id. at 1285. But — in upholding the district court's denial of discovery under the abuse-of discretion standard — the court relied on the “great potential for confusing the issues at trial,” an “unduly burdensome task” for the prosecution, and a “fishing expedition” predicated on the “hope that some favorable evidence would turn up.” Id. It relied on materiality too but characterized the general description of the materials as conclusory and insufficient. Id.[7]

Mr. Andrade's defense is that Mr. Abramoff was scheming with others — behind Mr. Andrade's back and without his knowledge or participation — to use Mr. Andrade's company and patented technology for Mr. Abramoff's own purposes. He contends that the discovery will refute the government's accusation that he acted with criminal intent. The discovery involves four persons: Mr. Abramoff (Mr. Andrade's co-schemer who pleaded guilty to wire fraud and failure to register as a lobbyist, see supra) and three others — Maria Butina, Alexander Levin, and Paul Erickson — who had relationships with Mr. Abramoff. The government describes Mr. Levin more specifically as Mr. Abramoff's associate and flags that Ms. Butina and Mr. Erickson (who were engaged to each other) were convicted of unrelated federal crimes.[8] Ms. Butina pleaded guilty in December 2018 in the District of Columbia to conspiracy to act in the United States as an agent of a foreign government, Russia. The case had nothing to do with cryptocurrency and involved Ms. Butina's entering the U.S. on an F-1 student visa, establishing relationships with powerful people in U.S. politics to advance Russia's interest, and not disclosing that she was a Russian agent.[9] Mr. Erickson pleaded guilty in November 2019 in the District of South Dakota to wire fraud and money laundering, was sentenced in July 2020, and was pardoned in January 2021 by former President Trump. The case had nothing to do with cryptocurrency and involved his soliciting investors to invest in a real-estate venture involving the construction of single-family homes and misappropriating the funds for personal use.[10]

*4 Mr. Andrade offers more context for his discovery requests based on the government's production on January 4, 2023, of twenty pages of documents that it obtained during a search of Ms. Butina's home.[11] They relate to AML Bitcoin, reference patents, talk about Mr. Andrade and his business, discuss promoting the deregulation of cryptocurrency (the opposite of Mr. Andrade's business plan to comply with money-laundering and know-your-customer regulations by using biometric technologies to confirm the identity of persons transacting AML Bitcoin[12]), and contain handwritten notes that the government attributes to Mr. Erickson. Overall, the documents show a discussion between Mr. Abramoff and (presumably) Mr. Erickson about their strategy and Mr. Andrade's business. Mr. Andrade said that he had no knowledge of this discussion and that it adds to other evidence “suggesting that Abramoff [was] using Blockchain Entertainment, the television show about Mr. Andrade's business, Landfair Capital, and other entities, for his schemes about Mr. Andrade's business that were adverse to Mr. Andrade, at the same time that Abramoff was orchestrating the conduct for which Mr. Andrade has been charged.”[13]

Mr. Andrade also offers more about Mr. Levin. He “is connected to this scheming by Abramoff, Butina and Erickson” because he participated “in the development and funding of a television show [referenced in the documents found in Ms. Butina's house] controlled by Abramoff, starring Abramoff and Mr. Andrade, and produced by Blockchain Entertainment and Ignition Creatives.”[14] Evidence on Mr. Abramoff's cell phone from June 2018 shows that he discussed consulting on a cryptocurrency project with Mr. Levin and sent him a proposal, a contract, and a $750,000 invoice from Landfair Consulting. In July, Mr. Abramoff “re-wrote” some of the consulting contracts and sent a term sheet that referenced a TV show based on a Ukrainian show that would be produced by Blockchain Entertainment.[15] When the FBI asked him about it in February 2020, Mr. Abramoff said that there was no cryptocurrency-consulting project and the invoice may have been related to the TV project or was a combined invoice for the show and the “US PR” effort. He “could not explain why the invoice was labeled as ‘cryptocurrency consulting.’ ” Mr. Abramoff “did have conversations with LEVIN about cryptocurrency.”[16] Mr. Andrade cites discovery suggesting that (1) Mr. Abramoff sent information to Mr. Levin about the television show about AML Bitcoin, (2) Mr. Levin is the link to raising money for the show, and (3) he received the promo reel.[17]

The following sections analyze the discovery requests that the parties were unable to resolve on their own: (1) documents withheld as potentially privileged from an already-produced image of Mr. Abramoff's phone; (2) images of Mr. Levin's devices; (3) extraction and other information from Mr. Erickson's phone; (4) documents related to the searches and seizures of the Levin, Erickson, and Butina devices; and (5) any statements to the government by Mr. Levinson, Mr. Erickson, and Ms. Butina.[18]

1. Abramoff Documents

*5 The government produced a Cellebrite image of Mr. Abramoff's phone on May 26, 2022. The first page has an imbedded image: “potentially privileged information removed.” Mr. Andrade asked for a privilege log but the government has not created a privilege log. The government withheld documents for potential privilege by running a search term for two lawyers and one law firm: Arent Fox LLP, Peter Zeidenberg, and Robert Abramoff. As a compromise, Mr. Andrade proposes a taint-team review of withheld documents that contain the search term “Robert Abramoff.” Robert Abramoff is Jack Abramoff's brother, a lawyer, and a movie producer, was connected to Blockchain Entertainment (the company behind the promotional video for the AML Bitcoin TV show), and created NAC Payroll (one of Mr. Andrade's companies), which had funds that were commingled with money from Jack Abramoff's fraudulent activities.[19] Mr. Andrade offers specific examples: (1) Robert was a producer on the Blockchain Entertainment project, not an attorney;[20] (2) Jack Abramoff proposed using his brother as a consultant on a shady project;[21] (3) Robert served in a management capacity for Landfair Capital (the company that Jack Abramoff used to collect money from his schemes and used to pay Mr. Andrade's employees); and (4) the government must see that Robert Abramoff is relevant because it has produced statements from four personal bank accounts, two law-firm accounts, his IRA, and his credit cards.[22]

The government responded to this compromise:

The Ninth Circuit has defined the relevant standard for determining privilege:

United States v. Ruehle, 583 F.3d 600, 607 (9th Cir. 2009) (cleaned up). The attorney-client privilege does not apply to an attorney's communications about business matters (as opposed to legal advice). United States v. ChevronTexaco Corp., 241 F. Supp. 2d 1065, 1076 (N.D. Cal. 2002). “Corporations may not conduct their business affairs in private simply by staffing a transaction with attorneys.” Id. “[The] party asserting the attorney-client privilege has the burden of establishing the [existence of an attorney-client] relationship and the privileged nature of the communication.” Ruehle, 583 F.3d at 607. In other words, “[t]he party asserting the privilege bears the burden of proving each essential element” of the attorney-client-privilege test. Id. at 608. “Because it impedes full and free discovery of the truth, the attorney-client privilege is strictly construed.” Id. at 607.

*6 The government recognizes that “there are likely numerous communications on Abramoff's phone that hit on those terms that are not privileged.”[24] Mr. Andrade has made a sufficient showing of materiality under Rule 16. Moreover, prosecutors have “a duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to the others acting on the government's behalf in the case.” Kyles, 514 U.S. at 437. A failure to search for and disclose “exculpatory” information within the meaning of Brady, Giglio, and their progeny may result in a dismissal of the indictment or other relief, such as a new trial. See, e.g., Kyles, 514 U.S. at 421–22 (“Because the net effect of the evidence withheld by the State in this case raises a reasonable probability that its disclosure would have produced a different result, Kyles is entitled to a new trial.”).

The court adopts Mr. Andrade's compromise of starting with Robert Abramoff. The government perhaps can mitigate its burden by asking Jack Abramoff to do a privilege review first: after all, the privilege is his. If he does not object to disclosure, then the problem is solved. But given Mr. Andrade's proffer of materiality, the government's taint team must review the documents and produce any that are not privileged. The parties must confer on the need for and form of a privilege log from the government. If Mr. Abramoff asserts privilege, he must submit a privilege log that complies with the court's procedures for privilege logs (set forth in the attached Standing Order).

2. Levin Devices

The next discovery issue is that Mr. Andrade asks for the images from Mr. Levin's devices without an AEO designation (and said the government had agreed to produce the images).[25] The government resists the discovery on the grounds the Levin devices — generated by another district in a search warrant there — are cumulative because any communications with Jack Abramoff necessarily are part of the already-disclosed production of content on Mr. Abramoff's devices. (It did not respond to the AEO contention.)[26] Mr. Andrade responds that only Mr. Levin's devices will have a full picture of what Mr. Levin did with the information and provide insight into what he, Mr. Abramoff, and others were doing.[27]

The information may be cumulative in part but Mr. Andrade has articulated a sufficient explanation (summarized at the beginning of the Analysis) about why the information is material. The court orders its production. There is no reason for an AEO designation.

3. Extractions from Erickson Phone

Mr. Andrade wants extractions from the Erickson phone or, if nothing exists, an explanation. He asked for the information on March 7, 2022, and July 15, 2022, and the government explained on January 25, 2023, that the FBI had destroyed the data on an unspecified date in March 2022 as “part of FBI standard procedure.”[28] The government responds that it asked the case agents in the Erickson case to review their files for copies of extractions and “the team has been unable to find any.” It clarified that — in contrast to its initial representation that the extractions were destroyed in March 2022 — the FBI closed the case file in March 2022 and “has not located any records regarding when those extractions were destroyed.” The government asserts that the information in any event is tangential because communications with Jack Abramoff would have been on the Abramoff devices.[29]

The information is material: Mr. Andrade has established a connection between Mr. Abramoff and Mr. Erickson that relates to this case. But there is no relief that the court can order: the information does not exist. For a clear record, if the government has the Erickson extractions or information about them (like the evidence review in this case, cited above, or information about the destruction), it must produce them. As discussed above, the government also has a duty to inquire. Kyles, 514 U.S. at 437.

4. Documents Relating to Searches and Seizures of the Levin, Erickson, and Butina Devices

*7 Mr. Andrade asks for FBI 302s, search warrants and affidavits, and other documents related to the search and seizure of the Butina documents (the twenty pages discussed above) and the devices seized from Levin, Erickson, and Butina.[30] The government produced the materials from the Butina case file and contends that the rest is about unrelated investigations.[31]

As described in the previous sections, Mr. Andrade has established a connection to this case surrounding Mr. Abramoff's involvement with Ms. Butina and Messieurs Levin and Erickson, and limiting the production to references to Mr. Andrade and AML Bitcoin is too narrow. Mr. Andrade gives examples (summarized at the beginning of the Analysis) about how a broader range of information is material. It is not just about Mr. Abramoff or Mr. Andrade and AML Bitcoin. It is about the larger context of the business model for cryptocurrency, whether Mr. Abramoff may have been working against Mr. Andrade, and how that affects Mr. Andrade's responsibility and scienter. It is also not a sufficient explanation that the discovery is necessarily duplicative. As described above, it is not. And again, the government has its duty to inquire under Brady and cannot delegate its Brady obligation to a non-lawyer.

5. Statements to the Government by Levin, Erickson, or Butina

Mr. Levin made no statements to the government. The issue then is any statements by Ms. Butina or Mr. Erickson. The government said that it produced the statement made by Ms. Butina that references AML Bitcoin and otherwise, neither person made any statements about AML Bitcoin or Mr. Andrade.[32] The analysis in the last section applies here: limiting production to references to Mr. Andrade and AML Bitcoin is too narrow. That said, information solely about Ms. Butina's work as an undisclosed Russian agent or Mr. Erickson's real-estate scheme is not material to the defense. But given the lack of burden attached to producing 302s,[33] the government might consider whether the utility of producing the statements — however thin the reed that connects the other investigations to this case — outweighs standing on the discovery rule.

The court orders (1) disclosure of non-privileged documents on the image of Jack Abramoff's phone containing the search term “Robert Abramoff,” (2) production of the Levin device without an AEO designation, (3) production of the Erickson extractions or any information about them, and (4) production of the information in categories 4 and 5 consistent with this order.

The government must serve a copy of this order on Jack Abramoff's counsel and file a proof of service.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Last revised April 3, 2023

Parties must comply with the procedures in the Federal Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure, the local rules, the general orders, this standing order, and the Northern District's standing order for civil cases titled “Contents of Joint Case Management Statement.” The rules are available at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov. The parties' failure to comply with the rules may be a ground for monetary sanctions, dismissal, entry of judgment, or other appropriate sanctions.

*8 Motions are heard on Thursdays: civil motions at 9:30 a.m., criminal motions at 10:30 a.m., and pretrial conferences at 1:00 p.m. Hearings are in person for civil cases if all parties agree and in person for criminal cases unless there is a ground for a videoconference. The court may notify the parties that an in-person hearing will be set on a different day. The parties may notice motions (other than discovery motions, discussed below) under the local rules for any available Thursday on the court's calendar (at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov).

Case-management conferences are by videoconference on Thursdays: criminal cases at 10:30 a.m. and civil cases at 11:00 a.m. Civil case-management conferences are not recorded unless a party asks or is appearing pro se.

Depending on its schedule, the court may reset or vacate hearings. For scheduling questions, please contact courtroom deputy Elaine Kabiling at lbcrd@cand.uscourts.gov or 415-522-3140.

If filings are voluminous, then the parties must lodge chambers copies that are double-side printed and three-hole punched. They must be the electronically filed copies with the PACER/ECF-generated header (case number, docket number, date, and ECF page number). Exhibits must be tabbed and have a table of contents. If the paper copies are more than two inches thick, then the parties must submit them in a binder.

In addition to paper copies, hyperlinked electronic copies should be submitted if feasible when the supporting documents are lengthy. Any pinpoint citations in the briefs must link to the specific page in the supporting exhibit. PDF briefs and bookmarked exhibits must be emailed to lbpo@cand.uscourts.gov. If the file is too large to email, please lodge a thumb drive or share access to a cloud-based hosting platform that allows court employees to download files.

Otherwise, the parties do not need to submit paper copies and instead can email a chambers PDF copy to lbpo@cand.uscourts.gov. Parties do not need to submit electronic copies of certificates of service, certificates of interested entities or persons, consents or declinations to the court's jurisdiction, stipulations that do not require a court order (see Civil Local Rule 6-1), or notices of appearance or substitution of counsel.

1. Less-Experienced Lawyers

The court encourages parties to give less-experienced lawyers an opportunity to participate in all court proceedings and to let the court know during the scheduling process.

2. Discovery

2.1 Privilege Logs

If a party withholds material as privileged, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5), it must produce a privilege log that is sufficiently detailed for the opposing party to assess whether the assertion of privilege is justified. The log must be produced as quickly as possible but no later than fourteen days after the party's disclosures or discovery responses are due unless the parties stipulate to, or the court sets, another date. Privilege logs must contain the following: (a) the title and description of the document, the number of pages, and the Bates-number range, if any; (b) the subject matter or general nature of the communication (without disclosing its contents); (c) the identity and position of its author; (d) the date of the communication; (e) the identity and position of the recipients of the communication; (f) the location where the document was found; (g) the specific basis for the assertion that the document is privileged or protected (including a brief summary of any supporting facts); and (h) the steps taken to ensure the confidentiality of the communication, including an affirmation that no unauthorized persons received the communication.

2.2 Discovery Disputes

*9 If parties have a discovery dispute, then counsel must confer by any means to resolve or narrow their dispute. If that process does not resolve the dispute, then lead trial counsel must confer in person if possible or at least by videoconference. Either party may demand a conference with one week's notice. The parties then may raise their dispute in a five-page letter brief (12-point font or greater, reasonable margins, and page breaks between paragraphs). Lead trial counsel for both parties must sign the letter and attest that they met and conferred in person or by videoconference.

The letter must discuss each dispute separately: each section must have one issue and (1) describe the unresolved issue, (2) summarize each party's position (with citations to the facts and legal authority), and (3) provide each party's final proposed compromise. The parties may submit supporting declarations and documentation of up to fifteen pages.

After the parties submit their dispute, then the court will determine the next steps, including issuing a ruling, ordering more briefing, or setting a hearing.

For discovery disputes involving third parties (usually under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45), the parties must try to use these procedures and at least must meet and confer (if possible) in person or by videoconference for any dispute. If they cannot agree to these procedures, then the moving party must file a noticed motion under the local rules and include in the notice a statement about its compliance with these procedures.

For emergencies during events such as depositions, the parties may contact the court under Civil Local Rule 37-1(b) by calling courtroom deputy Elaine Kabiling at 415-522-3140 and sending a joint email describing the dispute to lbcrd@cand.uscourts.gov and lbpo@cand.uscourts.gov.

3. Amended Pleadings

If a party files an amended pleading, it must file as an attachment a blackline compare of the amended pleading against the operative pleading.

4. Case-Management Statements

The first joint case-management conference statement in a case must have the information in the Northern District's standing order titled “Contents of Joint Case Management Statement.” Subsequent statements need not repeat information in earlier statements and preferably will have only new information.

5. Summary-Judgment Motions

The parties may not file separate statements of undisputed facts. See Civil Local Rule 56-2. Joint statements of undisputed facts are not required but are helpful. Any joint statement must include — for each undisputed fact — citations to admissible evidence.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 3, 2023