## Facts

- Said Farraj, a paralegal at a law firm involved in major tobacco litigation, had access to a confidential, restricted “trial plan” exceeding 400 pages containing trial strategy and related materials.
- The trial plan was treated as proprietary attorney work product and was not available outside the litigation team.
- The government alleged Said emailed an approximately 80-page excerpt of the trial plan from New York to counsel for tobacco defendants located out of state.
- The government further alleged Said attempted to sell the full trial plan for a substantial sum, culminating in negotiations for a $2,000,000 sale to an undercover FBI agent posing as defense counsel.
- Yeazid Farraj, Said’s brother, allegedly attended a meeting to receive payment and was arrested in connection with the proposed sale.
- A federal indictment charged both defendants with conspiracy, interstate transportation of stolen property under 18 U.S.C. § 2314, and computer fraud–related offenses.
- Before trial, defendants filed motions including (i) Said’s motion to dismiss the § 2314 count and (ii) motions to sever their trials and obtain related pretrial relief.

## Issues

1. Whether an electronically transmitted excerpt of a confidential litigation “trial plan” can constitute “goods, wares, or merchandise” transported in interstate commerce under 18 U.S.C. § 2314.
2. Whether the defendants were entitled to severance or other pretrial relief based on asserted prejudice from a joint trial.

## Decision

- The court denied Said Farraj’s motion to dismiss the § 2314 count.
- The court held the indictment sufficiently alleged that the electronically transmitted trial plan excerpt was property within § 2314 because it had independent commercial value and was treated as proprietary.
- The court concluded that interstate “transportation” under § 2314 could be satisfied by electronic transmission of the proprietary material.
- The court denied the defendants’ motions for severance and related pretrial relief, finding joinder proper given the alleged common scheme and finding that any prejudice could be addressed through limiting instructions and evidentiary management.

## Legal Principles

- For 18 U.S.C. § 2314, “goods, wares, or merchandise” may include electronically transmitted proprietary materials when they are identifiable property and are treated as items of trade or commerce.
- The absence of physical movement of paper across state lines does not, by itself, preclude § 2314 coverage if the stolen property is transmitted interstate by electronic means.
- Evidence of proprietary treatment (restricted access, confidentiality) and market value (attempted sale price and negotiations) supports treating confidential information as property protected by § 2314.
- Joint trials are generally favored where defendants are charged in a common scheme or conspiracy; severance requires a strong showing of prejudice that cannot be cured by limiting instructions or other trial safeguards.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the § 2314 charge to proceed on the theory that confidential litigation work product emailed interstate can be “goods, wares, or merchandise” when it has independent commercial value, and it rejected severance because the charged conduct arose from a single alleged scheme and potential prejudice could be managed at trial.


United States v. Farraj, 142 F. Supp. 2d 484 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)