S.D.N.Y.: In a document search, a slight overseizure that the govt declines to use avoids extraordinary remedy of suppression

“In sum, the affidavits set forth detailed information concerning the evidence of insider trading obtained and the connection between the devices and accounts concerned and probable additional evidence. The warrants were particularized and their breadth tied to the evidence relevant to the charges. Moreover, the warrants were reviewed and approved by two different magistrate judges acting independently, which provides a clear presumption of validity. Accordingly, defendants’ arguments that the evidence should be suppressed because the warrants lack particularity, are overbroad, and/or lack sufficient probable cause are without merit.” The government admits that it overseized one document, and it offers to not use it as a result. The court will not go to the extreme of suppressing all the evidence as a result. United States v. Pinto-Thomaz, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 206199 (S.D. N.Y. Dec. 6, 2018).