govinfo:USCOURTS-nyed-1_20-cr-00502-1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 
---------------------------------------------------------- X 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
-
 against - 
F
AWAZ OULD AHMED OULD 
AHEMEID, 
Defendant. 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND 
ORDER 
20-cr-502 (BMC)
---------------------------------------------------------- X 
CO
GAN, District Judge. 
D
efendant Fawaz Ould Ahmed Ould Ahemeid is charged in a six-count indictment with 
crimes related to his alleged activities on behalf of the foreign terrorist organizations al-Qaeda in 
the Islamic Maghreb (“AQIM”) and al-Murabitoun.  The indictment alleges that defendant 
planned and was involved in three terrorist attacks against Western targets in Mali: (1) the March 
7, 2015 attack on the La Terrasse restaurant in Bamako, Mali in which five people were killed; 
(2) the August 7, 2015 attack on the Hotel Byblos in Sevare, Mali, in which thirteen people,
including five United Nations workers, were killed; and (3) the November 20, 2015 attack on the 
Radisson Blu Hotel in Bamako, Mali, in which 20 people were killed, including U.S. citizen 
Anita Ashok Datar.  Defendant was incarcerated at Direction Générale de la Sécurité d’Etat 
(“DGSE”) in Bamako, Mali from April 2016 through December 2022 before being extradited to 
the United States.   
This case is before the Court on defendant’s motion to compel the production of eight 
categories of discovery.  Pertaining to all of these requested categories, defendant requests that 
the Government learn of, obtain, and disclose any discoverable evidence collected by foreign 
governments with which the Government conducted a joint investigation into defendant.  
Case 1:20-cr-00502-BMC-JRC     Document 134     Filed 07/16/25     Page 1 of 6 PageID #:
583
Case 1:20-cr-00502-BMC-JRC     Document 134     Filed 07/16/25     Page 1 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>
2 
Defendant acknowledges that the Government need only produce the discovery over which it has 
possession, custody, or control, and “in the case of joint investigations with a foreign 
government, the government’s duty in obtaining materials in the possession of a foreign 
government is limited to making a ‘good-faith effort’ to obtain the sought-after documents.”  See 
United States v. Connolly, No. 16-cr-370, 2017 WL 945934, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. March 2, 2017).  
Defendant even concedes that “the Government has turned over a significant amount of 
discovery obtained from foreign governments thus far.”  However, according to defendant, this is 
not enough.  Defendant requests that the Government “learn[ ] of any favorable evidence known 
to the other[ foreign governments] who [were] party to this joint investigation, as required by 
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 437 (1995), and United States v. Avellino, 136 F.3d 249, 255 
(2d Cir. 1998).” 
The Government represents that it “did not conduct a joint investigation with any foreign 
government into the defendant’s multiple terror attacks overseas.”  Accordingly, it asserts that it 
only needs to produce the discovery in its own possession, custody, or control.  Even so, the 
Government represents that it “has made a good faith effort to obtain foreign evidence” by 
sending “multiple legal requests to foreign governments for information related to the defendant 
and has produced to the defense the evidence it received in response.”   
Defendant’s argument boils down to the fact that he does not believe the Government 
when it says it has made a good faith effort to obtain evidence from foreign governments.  
Defendant takes issue with the fact that the Government “has not expressly represented that it 
has met its specific obligation of learning of any favorable evidence known to the others who 
[were] party to this joint investigation.”  However, it appears to the Court that the Government 
has done just that: it sent multiple requests for information related to defendant to foreign 
Case 1:20-cr-00502-BMC-JRC     Document 134     Filed 07/16/25     Page 2 of 6 PageID #:
584
Case 1:20-cr-00502-BMC-JRC     Document 134     Filed 07/16/25     Page 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>
3 
governments and produced the evidence it received in response to defendant.  It is unclear what 
else the Government can or should do, considering “the Government cannot compel . . . foreign 
sovereign[s]” to produce discovery.  Connolly, 2017 WL 945934, at *8.   
Absent any suggestion of bad faith or withholding discoverable material, the Court 
declines to reject the Government’s assertion that it has acted in good faith in obtaining 
discoverable material from foreign governments.  Cf. United States v. Stergo, No. 23-cr-20, 2023 
WL 3451381, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. May 15, 2023) (“Where the Government makes such good-faith 
representations that it has complied with its Brady/Giglio obligations, courts generally decline to 
compel production absent a reason to doubt the Government’s representation.” (collecting 
cases)).  
Turning to the specific categories of discovery defendant has requested, the Government 
has confirmed for several of these categories that it has produced all the discoverable material of 
which it is aware, and that if it identifies additional discoverable materials, it will timely produce 
such materials as well.  These categories include mirror image copies of all electronic devices 
that have been seized and searched in this case; all statements made by alleged co-conspirators, 
indicted or otherwise; documents, reports, information, or physical evidence relating to the Hotel 
Byblos attack; search warrants and chain of custody documentation; and experts, their reports, 
and underlying records.  The Court thus finds that the Government has already complied with 
defendant’s motion to compel these categories of discovery, and his motion is denied as moot as 
to them. 
This leaves three categories of discovery for which the Government has not represented 
that it has complied with its obligations under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 and Brady 
v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).   
Case 1:20-cr-00502-BMC-JRC     Document 134     Filed 07/16/25     Page 3 of 6 PageID #:
585
Case 1:20-cr-00502-BMC-JRC     Document 134     Filed 07/16/25     Page 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>
4 
First, defendant requests “[t]he names, addresses, telephone numbers, and statements of 
those persons with whom the Government has spoken and who may have some knowledge of the 
facts of this case but will not testify as witnesses for the Government at trial.”  Defendant 
contends that defense counsel should get to determine whether these unidentified witnesses are 
potential sources of discoverable information, not the Government.  Generally, “the Government 
is not obligated to provide the names of all potential witnesses it does not intend to call at trial.”  
United States v. Roberts, No. 01-cr-410, 2001 WL 1646732, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2001).  
Of course, to the extent any of this requested information must be produced pursuant to Rule 16 
or Brady, because it is favorable to defendant and material to his guilt or punishment, defendant 
is entitled to such discovery.  But it is “the Government’s responsibility,” not the Court’s or 
defendant’s, “to determine whether it is in possession of Brady material.”  United States v. 
Nance, 168 F. Supp. 3d 541, 550 (W.D.N.Y. 2016) (citing Kyles, 514 U.S. at 437).  Defendant’s 
motion to compel the identity, contact information, and statements of people with knowledge of 
the facts of the case but who the Government will not call at trial, is granted to the extent such 
information is considered Rule 16 or Brady material, according to the Government, and is 
otherwise denied.      
The second unresolved category of discovery defendant requests is “[f]oreign law 
enforcement and prior custody records.”  These requested records include “documentation 
regarding Mr. Ahemeid’s capture and detention in Mali, property vouchers for any seized items, 
and any memorialized basis for why the United States government waited seven years between 
Mr. Ahemeid’s arrest in Mali and his subsequent indictment in the United States,” “the 
conditions of confinement at DGSE, the methods of interrogation, ‘enhanced interrogation,’ 
and/or torture Mr. Ahemeid was subjected to at DGSE, and the United States government’s role 
Case 1:20-cr-00502-BMC-JRC     Document 134     Filed 07/16/25     Page 4 of 6 PageID #:
586
Case 1:20-cr-00502-BMC-JRC     Document 134     Filed 07/16/25     Page 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>
5 
in Mr. Ahemeid’s interrogation,”  and “complete DGSE records, including medical [and] custody 
and . . . records from any and all overseas facilities, including those in Cote D’Ivoire, where Mr. 
Ahemeid was taken or held.”  To the extent these requested records are in the possession of 
foreign governments, and the Government has requested such records and turned over what it 
received, the Government has complied with its discovery obligations.  Considering such records 
over which the Government itself has possession, custody, or control, the Government must 
comply with its Rule 16 and Brady obligations.  The Government shall produce such records that 
are in its possession, custody, or control and that are favorable and material to defendant’s guilt 
or punishment.  
Third, 
 defendant requests “[a] copy of all original notes and memoranda (whether 
handwritten or otherwise) that may have been made by an investigating agent in this case.”  
Additionally, “[i]f such notes and memoranda were once in existence but have now been 
destroyed,” defendant requests “the purpose and exact information surrounding their destruction 
. . . in complete detail.”  Finally, defendant requests English translations of these documents that 
have already been produced and that will be produced.  As noted above, the Government has 
satisfied its discovery obligations as to such records that are in the possession of foreign 
governments.  If there remain any such documents that have not yet been produced in the 
Government’s possession, custody, or control that are favorable to defendant and material to his 
guilt or punishment, the Government shall produce them.  This includes explanations of any such 
documents’ destruction “to the extent the materials lost or destroyed would be discoverable 
under Ruled 16 or this opinion” because “[t]he government has not specifically responded to this 
request.”  United States v. Taylor, 707 F. Supp. 696, 705 (S.D.N.Y. 1989). 
Case 1:20-cr-00502-BMC-JRC     Document 134     Filed 07/16/25     Page 5 of 6 PageID #:
587
Case 1:20-cr-00502-BMC-JRC     Document 134     Filed 07/16/25     Page 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>
6 
As for defendant’s request for English translations, the Government is ordered to produce 
a
ny English translations it has already prepared, but the Government is not required to create 
translations of documents for the purpose of defendant’s use.  Compare United States v. 
Mosquera, 816 F. Supp. 168, 177 (E.D.N.Y. 1993) (“Where documents are translated by the 
government . . . they shall be shared without charge with all defendants whether or not privately 
represented.”) with United States v. Oztemel, No. 23-cr-26, 2024 WL 2701683, at *1 (D. Conn. 
May 24, 2024) (“neither Rule 16 nor Brady requires the Government to prepare and produce 
translations of materials it does not intend to offer at trial”).   
The Court notes that it is simply requiring the Government to comply with its Rule 16 
and 
Brady obligations.  To the extent defendant is moving to compel discovery beyond that 
required by Rule 16 and Brady, the motion is denied.  Defendant has not identified what more he 
is entitled to, or why such additional discovery is necessary here.  Moreover, if the Government 
contends that any of the discovery that must be produced pursuant to this Order is classified, the 
production of such discovery will be determined pursuant to the ongoing CIPA process in this 
case, and the Government need not produce it now.   
The Court therefore grants in part and denies in part defendant’s motion to com
 pel.     
SO ORDERED. 
U.S.D.J.  
D
ated: Brooklyn, New York 
 July 16, 2025 
Case 1:20-cr-00502-BMC-JRC     Document 134     Filed 07/16/25     Page 6 of 6 PageID #:
588
Case 1:20-cr-00502-BMC-JRC     Document 134     Filed 07/16/25     Page 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight