Defendant Aimee Bock's Motion for Reconsideration of Request for Continuance — Doc. 437

Summary

Defendant Aimee Bock's Motion for Reconsideration of Her Request for Continuance, filed 01/10/25 as Doc. 437 in United States v. Aimee Marie Bock (1), Criminal No. 22-CR-223 (NEB/DTS), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. Through counsel Kenneth Udoibok, Bock asks the court to reconsider its order denying a 30-day continuance of the February 3, 2025 trial. She states that the government produced about 10 terabytes of data on January 2, 2025, after producing 47.6 gigabytes on December 12, 2024. She argues that the government has an affirmative duty under Brady and Giglio to produce exculpatory and impeachment evidence, and that the data shows Feeding Our Future staff made site monitoring visits. The motion is dated January 10, 2025.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Cite this document

“Defendant Aimee Bock's Motion for Reconsideration of Request for Continuance — Doc. 437.” Original at archive.org. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/court-filing-united-states-v-bock-et-al-feeding-our-future-dkt-437-d-m-bba6136545/, SHA-256 0c9455f7357f615a79a4ed004ae727295ac7d5363c4d23b7d41e316fcde111a2.

Full text

CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 437 Filed 01/10/25 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CRIMINAL NO: 22-CR-223 (NEB/DTS)

United States of America,
DEFENDANT AIMEE BOCK’S
Plaintiff, MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
vs. OF HER REQUEST FOR
CONTINUANCE
Aimee Marie Bock (1),
Defendant.

Defendant Aimee Marie Bock (hereinafter “Defendant”), through her counsel,

Kenneth Udoibok, respectfully moves this Court to Reconsider its Order denying her

request for a 30-day continuance of the scheduled trial. With the trial set for February 3,

2025, the Government, on January 2, 2025, finally produced approximately 10 terabytes of

exculpatory information.

On December 24, 2024, Bock moved for a short, 30-day continuance of the trial

setting because the Government had just produced nearly 48 gigabytes of exculpatory data

with another 10 terabytes that it had not produced. (ECF No. 390). To contextualize the

quantity of new material the Government just provided, 48 gigabytes is about 480,000

documents, and 10 terabytes is 65 million document pages.

In its response, the Government argued that it made the documents available to Bock

on request and claimed that she had not requested the information until recently. (ECF No.

391). On that basis, the Court denied Bock’s request before she could file a reply. (ECF

1
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 437 Filed 01/10/25 Page 2 of 7

No. 392). The Government conflates the 10 terabytes of data it failed to produce with

Bock’s efforts to obtain it.

As an initial matter, the Government’s affirmative duty to produce material

exculpatory and impeachment evidence is well-established. Bock has no duty or obligation

to request material exculpatory or impeachment evidence. As the Government explains in

its manual and on its website:

Government disclosure of material exculpatory and impeachment evidence
is part of the constitutional guarantee to a fair trial. Brady v. Maryland, 373
U.S. 83, 87 (1963); Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154 (1972). The
law requires the disclosure of exculpatory and impeachment evidence when
such evidence is material to guilt or punishment. Brady, 373 U.S. at
87; Giglio, 405 U.S. at 154. Because they are Constitutional
obligations, Brady and Giglio evidence must be disclosed regardless of
whether the defendant makes a request for exculpatory or impeachment
evidence. Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 432-33 (1995).1

(emphasis added).

Nonetheless, on December 15, 2023, Bock filed a motion for discovery pursuant to

Federal Rules 16 and Brady. (ECF No. 196). Bock specifically requested all documents

“material to the preparation of Defendant’s defense” as well as all documents that “were

obtained from or belong to the Defendant.” (ECF No. 196, p. 3).

In response, the Government noted that it fully appreciated and understood its

discovery obligations under the Rules, Brady, and Giglio and that it had complied with all

its obligations. (ECF No. 255, p.8). As the Government put it: “The government

1
Available at: Justice Manual | 9-5.000 - Issues Related To Discovery, Trials, And Other Proceedings | United States
Department of Justice

2
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 437 Filed 01/10/25 Page 3 of 7

understands, has complied with, and will continue to comply with, its Brady and Giglio

obligations to produce exculpatory and impeachment evidence to the Defense.” Id.

On December 11, 2024, Bock filed a motion to compel, arguing that she had recently

become aware through media reports that the Government had failed to produce key

evidence from Monday.com, Center Pilot, and the CLiCS system. That information

included: (i) photos and videos of Feeding Our Future staff conducting monitoring visits at

various sites; (ii) photos and videos of food being prepared and distributed to the public at

Feeding Our Future sites; (iii) notes and reports Feeding Our Future staff prepared from

their visits to sites; (iv) documentation of numerous Feeding Our Future staff collecting

and reviewing documentation provided by sites; (v) communications between Feeding Our

Future staff and sites; (vi) documents relating to Feeding Our Future denying sites and

disallowing claims; and the like.

In response to Bock’s motion, on December 12, 2024, the Government produced a

thumb drive with 47.6 gigabytes of material exculpatory and impeachment evidence for

the first time.

The Government’s production, however, was still inadequate and incomplete. The

Government still failed to produce approximately 10 terabytes of information it had from

Feeding Our Future’s employees’ devices. The information from those devices include: (i)

photos and videos of Feeding Our Future staff conducting monitoring and site visits; (ii)

photos and videos of food being prepared and distributed to the public at Feeding Our

Future sites; (iii) monitoring and site visit forms showing the Feeding Our Future

individuals that visited various sites and what they noted from each visit; (iv) emails, text

3
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 437 Filed 01/10/25 Page 4 of 7

messages, and call logs between Feeding Our Future employees and various sites; (v) the

Feeding Our Future employees responsible for monitoring and visiting each site; and the

like. Undoubtedly, videos and pictures of sites distributing massive amounts of food to the

public are material and exculpatory.

The Government has also alleged that “Bock and Feeding Our Future gave false

assurances that they were monitoring the sites under its sponsorship…” (ECF No. 1, ¶ 34).

During the first trial, the Government elicited testimony from Hadith Ahmed that Feeding

Our Future employees were not doing site visits:

Tr. 2777:19-2778:7.

4
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 437 Filed 01/10/25 Page 5 of 7

As Bock has only now learned from media reports, the Government had Ahmed’s and

other Feeding Our Future employees’ devices in its possession, which proved that was not true.

The devices the Government chose not to produce establish that Ahmed and other Feeding Our

Future employees did numerous site visits.

For example, on April 15, 2021, a device shows that two different Feeding Our Future

employees visited Safari. The devices also show that Feeding Our Future vigorously investigated

possible concerns and that Ahmed himself did monitoring visits and invited others to go with

him:

5
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 437 Filed 01/10/25 Page 6 of 7

The documents the Government failed to produce conclusively prove that Feeding

Our Future employees went well beyond their regulatory requirements in conducting

monitoring visits and include contemporaneous documents identifying the individuals that

conducted the visits, the dates they made the visits, any issues they saw, and often even

photographs of the food being disturbed. The Government cannot allege Feeding Our

Future made “false assurances” to MDE about its monitoring visits and then failed to

produce the documents proving that Feeding Our Future did exactly what it said.

On December 26, 2024, the Government produced nearly 10 terabytes of material

that would be exculpatory and impeachment evidence for the first time. The information,

6
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 437 Filed 01/10/25 Page 7 of 7

however, was not in a usable format. On January 2, the Government produced an addition

in a purported useable format. Bock cannot verify the assertion because of her focus on

satisfying filing deadlines for trial materials.

In short, the Government has an affirmative, unqualified duty to produce all material

exculpatory and impeachment evidence. The Government failed to satisfy that obligation

by failing to produce documents from Monday.com, Center Pilot, and CLICS until

December 12, 2024, and by still failing to produce documents from Feeding Our Future

devices. The Government has had this information for over three years and has offered no

explanation for its failure to produce the documents sooner. Despite having no obligation

to seek the information, Bock filed motions in December 2023 and December 2024.

With the trial just weeks away, Bock has just received the information. Given the

Government’s extensive and untimely production of key information, Bock cannot

reasonably be expected to review the information before trial. She again requests that the

Court grant a 30-day extension to the trial date from the date the Government makes its

required disclosures.

Respectfully Submitted,

KENNETH UBONG UDOIBOK, P.A.

January 10, 2025 /s/Kenneth U. Udoibok
Kenneth U. Udoibok (#0262523)
Suite 5010, 310 Fourth Avenue
South Minneapolis, MN 55415
Phone: (612) 808-6031
k@kenulaw.com

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
AIMEE MARIE BOCK

File and source

File: 437.pdf
Size: 397,973 bytes
SHA-256: 0c9455f7357f615a79a4ed004ae727295ac7d5363c4d23b7d41e316fcde111a2
Our copy: 437.pdf
Original: archive.org