The judge emphasized that the Defense must show the relevance of requested information, rejecting speculative reasoning about its potential usefulness. Speculation does not meet the standard.
In denying the Defense's discovery motion, the court noted that vague assertions about what communications 'might' reveal do not satisfy the stringent materiality requirement under Rule 16.
The court dismissed arguments regarding MLAT communications, emphasizing that materiality must be established through concrete evidence, not conjectural possibilities.
Ultimately, the judge's ruling suggests a challenging precedent for developers, as the requirements to prove materiality could hinder future defenses in similar cases.
Collection
[
|
...
]