Quattrone’s Request to Move Trial Is Disputed

Government lawyers have told a federal judge that moving Frank Quattrone’s upcoming obstruction-of-justice trial to Northern California from New York is unwarranted and would significantly delay the proceeding.

In papers filed Thursday night, federal prosecutors in Manhattan disputed the former Silicon Valley investment banker’s contention that the trial should be relocated because many witnesses live in California and a change of venue would help his San Francisco-based lawyer prepare a defense.

Prosecutors responded that Quattrone is wealthy enough to stay in a New York hotel for the expected two-week trial, adding that many witnesses and government officials are based in New York.

The trial is scheduled to begin Sept. 29 before U.S. District Judge Richard Owen in Lower Manhattan. Owen will consider the venue-change request at a hearing Aug. 4.

“The government has expended considerable resources centralizing the evidence in this case in New York,” the two government lawyers handling the case wrote to Owen. “If the trial were transferred to California, the government would be required to bear the expense of relocating its entire prosecution team to California.”

The government would have to transport more than 150 boxes of files, the government lawyers said.

They also argued that Quattrone, knowing he could be charged by prosecutors in New York, could have hired a lead New York attorney.

Venue changes are commonly requested but rarely granted, experts say.

Quattrone was indicted in May on charges of obstructing justice and witness tampering. Prosecutors allege that he sought to impede government probes into the handling of initial public stock offerings while employed as a top banker at New York-based Credit Suisse First Boston.

Based in CSFB’s Palo Alto office, Quattrone played a high-profile role in financing the technology boom of the late 1990s.

The case revolves around a brief December 2000 e-mail written by Quattrone in which he urged his employees to “clean up” certain documents.

In Thursday’s filing, prosecutors argued that Quattrone should be denied access to the details of grand jury hearings on the IPO issue.

Quattrone’s attorneys told Owen last month that the grand jury information would be crucial because with it, they could argue that Quattrone thought any documents destroyed as a result of his e-mail weren’t being sought by the grand jury.

Prosecutors responded that the grand jury IPO probe “is not relevant to any issue in this case.”

They also argued that releasing such evidence could embarrass grand jury witnesses and make witnesses in future actions fearful of public disclosure.

The government also indicated that it would seek to defuse what is expected to be a key Quattrone argument: that no charges resulted from the grand jury hearings.

That fact is “without legal significance,” the government lawyers wrote, saying they will try to bar Quattrone’s team from raising it at trial.