Full opinion text
DECISION AND ORDER SKRETNY, District Judge. INTRODUCTION Presently before this Court are Defendant Thomas G. Longo’s appeal of the Decision and Order of the Honorable Leslie G. Foschio, United States Magistrate Judge, filed on February 26, 1999, and Longo’s objections to the Report and Recommendation of Judge Foschio, also filed on February 26, 1999. Longo is charged in a four count Indictment, dated September 19, 1997, with violations of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846, 18 U.S.C. § 2, and 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3). Specifically, Longo is charged with conspiracy with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana, with attempt to possess with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana, with conspiracy to travel interstate, and traveling interstate, and with the intent to carry on an unlawful activity through the use of a business enterprise involving the unlawful distribution of marijuana. On February 4, 1999, this Court referred this case to Judge Foschio for disposition of all pretrial matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and for report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). On October 5, 1998, Longo filed extensive Omnibus Motions before Judge Fos-chio. By these motions, Longo made various discovery requests and, in addition, sought suppression of evidence and/or for evidentiary hearings, and sought another hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978). On February 26, 1999, Judge Foschio filed the Decision and Order, which primarily addresses discovery and disclosure issues, and the Report and Recommendation, which primarily addresses the suppression and hearing motions. Most of Longo’s requests were denied by Judge Foschio. Longo now appeals Judge Foschio’s decision and objects to Judge Foschio’s recommendations almost in their entirety. Longo filed his appeal of the Decision and Order and his objections to the Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.3. By his appeal of the Decision and Order, Longo disputes Judge Foschio’s denial of Longo’s Motions: (1) for Disclosure of Records Relating to the Search at his Law Office; (2) to Produce Brady Material; (3) for Disclosure of Impairments in the Testimonial Capacity of Prosecution Witnesses; (4) for Discovery of Specified Items; (5) for Request for Notice Pursuant to Fed. R.Crim.P. 12(d)(2); (6) for Access to Sealed Court Documents; (7) for Production of Statements of Persons Who are Not Prospective Government Witnesses; (8) for Disclosure of Non-Privileged Grand Jury Information; (9) for a Bill of Particulars; (10) to Preserve Evidence and Access to Potential Witnesses; and (11) Longo appeals Judge Foschio’s decision to grant the Government’s Motions to Disclose. By his objections to the Report and Recommendation, Longo opposes Judge Foschio’s recommendations that: (1) the search warrant of Longo’s computer files was supported by probable cause; (2) the warrant was sufficiently particular; (3) a warrantless search was not conducted; (4) the warrant was conducted in good faith; (5) a Franks hearing is not warranted; (6) suppression of recorded statements should be denied; (7) the attorney-client privilege was not violated; (8) Longo’s Sixth Amendment rights were not violated; (9) the Government did not violate DR 7-104; (10) Longo’s Fifth Amendment rights were not violated; and (11) Longo’s requests for an evidentiary hearing be denied. For the reasons set forth below, this Court denies Longo’s appeal of the Decision and Order (“D & 0”) and adopts the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”), thereby denying Longo’s motion to suppress evidence and/or for evidentiary hearings, and for a Franks hearing. BACKGROUND The charges against Longo arose after the arrest of Lester Williams and William Cope in March of 1996, following their attempt to purchase 1,000 pounds of marijuana from undercover agents. (R & R at 3-4.) At the time of arrest $146,000 was seized, which was to be used as a down payment on the marijuana. (Meinhardt Aff. at 2.) Williams and Cope agreed to cooperate with the Government, and information was developed regarding Longo’s participation in providing a portion of the funds that were to be used to purchase the marijuana. (R & R at 4.) Williams told the Government that he and Longo were partners in a bar/restaurant named Wizard’s Inn. (R & R at 4.) In July of 1995 the establishment burned to the ground and Longo received a settlement check for $130,000, which was deposited into his business account. (R & R at 4.) Caroline Schweter, Longo’s legal secretary, cut two checks, each for $65,000, made payable to Williams and Longo. (Gov’t Omnibus Resp. at 4.) Longo and Williams traveled to Caesar’s Palace, Atlantic City, on March 1, 1996, and deposited the checks at the casino. (Meinhardt Aff. at 3.) Within the next 24 hours they converted the funds to cash and returned to Cleveland. (Meinhardt Aff. at 3.) Williams supplied the Government with a Promissory Note, backdated to February 29, 1996, and a Purchase Agreement signed by him and Longo. (Meinhardt Aff. at 4.) These documents allegedly purported to represent a legitimate business transaction, in which Longo purchased the remaining half of the business, for $50,000, in return for Longo canceling the Promissory Note, valued at $65,000. After Williams was arrested, he recorded conversations with Longo. (Ex. C to Longo Omnibus Mot.) During the investigation, the Government received information from Schweter. (Meinhardt Aff. at 5.) She advised the Government that the Promissory Note was backdated and that Longo and his attorney had questioned her about her testimony to the Grand Jury. (Id. at 5.) Schweter also gave the Government the file and directory names of both documents, which existed in her computer, and drew a schematic of Longo’s office, indicating where her computer was located. (Id. at 6.) A search warrant was issued by the Honorable Patricia A. Hemann, United States Magistrate Judge for the Northern District of Ohio. While executing the search, the Government agents confirmed that both the Promissory Note and the Purchase Agreement were stored in Schweter’s computer. (Gov’t Omnibus Resp. at 10.) On September 19, 1997, Longo was indicted on charges of conspiracy with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana, attempt to possess with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana, conspiracy to travel interstate, and traveling interstate, and with the intent to carry on an unlawful activity through the use of a business enterprise involving the unlawful distribution of marijuana. Longo filed extensive Omnibus Motions before Judge Foschio. On February 26, 1999, Judge Foschio filed the Decision and Order and the Report and Recommendation, which denied most of Longo’s requests. Longo now appeals Judge Foschio’s recommendations and decision almost in their entirety. DISCUSSION I. STANDARDS OF REVIEW FOR A MAGISTRATE’S DECISION AND ORDER AND FOR A REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION On February 4, 1999, this Court referred this case to Judge Foschio for disposition of all pretrial matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and for report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 686(b)(1)(B). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), a magistrate’s decision and order on a nondispositive issue should be reviewed by the district judge according to the clearly erroneous standard. See United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673, 100 S.Ct. 2406, 65 L.Ed.2d 424 (1980). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), a district court judge may designate a magistrate judge to submit proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition on a defendant’s motion in a criminal case. However, the parties have an opportunity to object to the magistrate judge’s proposed findings. Upon the filing of timely objections, the district judge must conduct a de novo review of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation “upon the record, or after additional evidence,” but only as to those portions of the report and recommendation to which the party objects. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). See also Grassia v. Scully, 892 F.2d 16, 19 (2d Cir.1989). The district court is not required to conduct a de novo hearing on the matter, but the court must arrive at its own independent conclusion about those portions of the magistrate’s report and recommendation to which the objection is made. See East River Sav. Bank v. Secretary of Housing & Urban Development, 702 F.Supp. 448, 452 (S.D.N.Y.1988). Following this determination: “a judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate. The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate with instructions.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Finally, although a de novo review requires the district court to independently consider and arrive at its own conclusions regarding the portions of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation that were objected to, the district court need not specifically articulate all of its reasons for rejecting a party’s objections. See Murphy v. International Business Machines Corporation, 23 F.3d 719, 722 (2d Cir.1994); Buffalo Central Terminal v. United States, 886 F.Supp. 1031, 1035-36 (W.D.N.Y.1995) (citations omitted). It is under these standards that this Court will evaluate Longo’s appeal of Judge Foschio’s Decision and Order and his objections to Judge Foschio’s Report and Recommendation. II. APPEAL OF THE DECISION AND ORDER Of the nineteen motions included in Lon-go’s Omnibus Motion, Longo now appeals eleven of them. After careful consideration of each motion, this Court agrees with Judge Foschio’s reasoning and dismisses Longo’s appeal of the Decision and Order. A. Motion for Disclosure of Records Relating to Search at Longo’s Law Office By this motion, Longo requests a copy of all governmental records related to the search of his law office. (D & 0 at 5.) Judge Foschio dismissed the motion in part, recognizing that the Government had complied with Defendant’s requests. (D & 0 at 5-6.) However, Judge Foschio ordered the Government to provide such materials, to the extent that they are Brady materials, to be disclosed no later than 30 days.prior to trial. (D & 0 at 5.) This Court finds that Judge Foschio’s ruling was not clearly erroneous and, therefore, the decision is affirmed. B. Motion to Produce Brady Material By this motion, Longo seeks disclosure of impeaching material, including: various items relating to communications between himself and Lester Williams, a government informant; communication records of Longo; and various documents and records. (D & 0 at 7.) Judge Foschio dismissed this motion as moot due to the Government’s willingness to comply. (D & 0 at 9.) Longo asserts that Brady materials are immediately discoverable, which would require production of such documents sooner than 30 days prior to trial. (Longo Reply Obj. at 3-4.) This Court finds that Judge Foschio’s ruling was not clearly erroneous and, therefore, the decision is affirmed. C. Disclosure of Impairments in the Testimonial Capacity of Prosecution Witnesses By this motion, Longo seeks the disclosure of the impairments of prosecution witnesses in the testimonial capacity, specifically in regard to Lester Williams. (D & O at 9.) Judge Foschio denied the motion because: the Government does not possess such records; such records are protected from disclosure, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 290dd-2; and Longo has not demonstrated that Williams was using drugs or alcohol at the time in question. (D & O at 10-12.) This Court finds that Judge Foschio’s ruling was not clearly erroneous and, therefore, the decision is affirmed. D. Motion for Discovery of Specified Items By this motion, Longo seeks tapes, transcripts, logs or recordings from the investigation of him and incarceration records of potential government witnesses. (D & O at 12-13.) Judge Foschio dismissed most of the motion as moot, once again recognizing the Government’s willingness to comply. (D & O at 13-18.) Judge Foschio denied the remaining request for early disclosure of Jencks material. (D & O at 13-18.) This Court finds that Judge Foschio’s ruling was not clearly erroneous and, therefore, the decision is affirmed. E. Request for Notice Pursuant to Fed. R.Crim.P. 12(d)(2) By this motion, Longo requests an order requiring the Government to provide notice of any evidence arguably subject to suppression, including the statements of Government witnesses. (D & 0 at 18.) Judge Foschio denied Longo’s motion because of Longo’s mistaken reliance on United States v. Singleton, 144 F.3d 1343 (10th Cir.1998) and also because Longo has not met the burden of identifying evidence arguably subject to suppression and because the Government provided the requested information pursuant to voluntary discovery. (D & 0 at 19-21.) This Court finds that Judge Foschio’s ruling was not clearly erroneous and, therefore, the decision is affirmed. F. Motion for Access to Sealed Court Documents By this motion, Longo seeks the following sealed materials: (1) plea agreements involving Lester Williams and William Cope, potential government witnesses; (2) materials relating to the motion for adjournment of sentencing and preliminary hearings pending cooperation with the Government; (3) materials relating to the motion to temporarily relocate; and (4) affidavits concerning a potential conflict of interest between Longo’s counsel and counsel for a cooperating witness. (D & 0 at 22.) Judge Foschio conducted an in camera review and dismissed the motion related to William Cope as moot,for he is deceased. (D & 0 at 23.) The Government has agreed to supply impeaching materials, therefore, this request is moot. (D & 0 at 23.) Alternatively, Longo has failed to demonstrate a basis for disclosure. (D & 0 at 23-32.) Finally, further sealing of the requested documents is necessary given the Government’s interest in maintaining the cooperation of witnesses and effectiveness of ongoing investigations. (D & 0 at 23-32.) This Court finds that Judge Foschio’s ruling was not clearly erroneous and, therefore, the decision is affirmed. G. Motion for Production of Statements of Persons Who are Not Prospective Government Witnesses By this motion, Longo requests the disclosure of statements by persons who are not prospective government witnesses, including co-conspirators and unavailable witnesses (such as William Cope, who is now deceased), and seeks disclosure of the identity of all Government informers possessing information that may be material to Longo’s alleged guilt or innocence. (D & 0 at 32.) Judge Foschio denied the’motion concerning co-conspirator statements because neither the Jencks Act nor Fed.R.Crim.P. 16(a) authorize pretrial disclosure of statements from non-testifying witnesses. (D & 0 at 32-34.) Judge Foschio denied the motion concerning statements by unavailable witnesses because the Jencks Act only applies to those witnesses who have testified. (D & 0 at 34-35.) Should the Government obtain testimony from those witnesses who are unavailable to testify, the Government will be required to disclose the testimony, pursuant to the Jencks Act. (D & 0 at 35.) Judge Foschio denied Longo’s motion for witness and informant identities because Longo failed to demonstrate that such information is material to his defense. (D & 0 at 35-41.) This Court finds that Judge Foschio’s ruling was not clearly erroneous and, therefore, the decision is affirmed. H.Disclosure of Non-Privileged Grand Jury Information By this motion, Longo requests various Grand Jury documents, documents relating to the authority of the Grand Jury, including any extension or impanelment orders and the date of the impanelment, and jury instructions. (D & 0 at 43.) Judge Foschio dismissed Lon-go’s request for Grand Jury selection documents because the Government agreed and directed Longo to obtain the documents from the Clerk’s Office. (D & 0 at 45.) Judge Foschio dismissed the request for the extension and impanelment orders, and the date of impanelment, because the Grand Jury impanelment date is on the indictment, but he found that the extension and impanelment orders are discoverable and the Government must release said items. (D & 0 at 46.) Meanwhile, Longo failed to identify governmental misconduct and, therefore, Judge Foschio denied release of Grand Jury instructions. (D & 0 at 47-49.) The motion requesting records of hearsay testimony, the circumstances under which the indictment was presented, and the names of persons who have learned confidential Grand Jury information was denied because Longo failed to demonstrate a particularized need. (D & 0 at 47-49.) Longo asserts that release of Grand Jury instructions is mandated when the accused is charged as a co-conspirator. (Longo Reply Obj. at. 10-11.) This Court finds that Judge Foschio’s ruling was not clearly erroneous and, therefore, the decision is affirmed. I. Motion for a Bill of Particulars By this motion, Longo requests particularization of the term “business enterprise,”. names of co-conspirators, time and place of all meetings that are alleged to further the conspiracy, and particularization of the charges against him. (D & 0 at 51.) Judge Foschio dismissed Longo’s request that “business enterprise” be particularized, as the Government subsequently provided such information. (D & 0 at 51.) Request for the following items was granted: the basis of criminal liability; the names of any co-conspirators; those individuals described as “others” in the Indictment; and whether it is alleged that Longo had actual or constructive possession of the controlled substance. (D & 0 at 52-53.) Judge Foschio denied further particularization because Longo failed to demonstrate that it would aid in his defense. (D & 0 at 51-52.) This Court finds that Judge Foschio’s ruling was not clearly erroneous and, therefore, the decision is affirmed. J. Motion to Preserve Evidence Access to Potential Witnesses By this motion, Longo moved to suppress any evidence that may be discoverable at some future stage of the proceedings, as well as access to potential witnesses. (D & 0 at 53.) Judge Foschio dismissed the request to preserve evidence as moot based on the Government’s willingness to comply. (D & 0 at 53-54.) Judge Foschio denied the request to preserve access to potential witnesses because Longo did not accuse the Government of concealing a witness or otherwise engaging in misconduct. (D & 0 at 54.) This Court finds that Judge Foschio’s ruling was not clearly erroneous and, therefore, the decision is affirmed. K.Government’s Motion to Disclose By this motion, the Government sought reciprocal disclosure of all books, papers, documents, photographs, tangible objects, or copies or portions thereof which are in the custody and control of Longo. (D & 0 at 55.) Judge Foschio granted the motion for reciprocal discovery. (D & 0 at 55.) Longo objects to the Order because presently he does not know whether he will introduce any such evidence, as he does not have any in his possession, and consequently, cannot notify the Government. This Court finds that Judge Fos-chio’s ruling was not clearly erroneous and, therefore, the decision is affirmed. III. OBJECTIONS TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Judge Foschio’s Report and Recommendation addresses Longo’s motion to suppress evidence and/or to conduct evidentia-ry hearings, and to conduct a Franks hearing. Longo offered a multitude of grounds to justify the relief requested, including violations of the Fourth Amendment, the attorney-client privilege, the Sixth Amendment, Disciplinary Rule 7-104 of the Code of Responsibility, and the Fifth Amendment. In the Report and Recommendation, Judge Foschio addressed each of these grounds for the relief requested individually and in great detail. From this Court’s review of Judge Fosehio’s analysis, it is clear that these various grounds involve many of the same issues and are based mainly upon the Government’s interaction with Caroline Schweter, Longo’s secretary, and Schweter’s involvement in the events related to this case. Therefore, this Court chose to approach oral argument from this perspective, recognizing the impact that Schweter’s involvement has upon all of the issues. For purposes of summarizing the objections, the issues will be arranged in the same manner that Judge Foschio set forth. Following this summary is a discussion of the arguments raised in oral argument. A. Fourth Amendment Issues 1. Probable Cause Judge Foschio relied on numerous sources to conclude that the warrant was supported by probable cause. (R & R at 11-14.) Longo contends that portions of the Information, upon which Judge Fos-chio relied, were obtained pursuant to an illegal search conducted by Longo’s legal secretary, Caroline Schweter. (Longo Obj. at 8-10,14.) 2. Particularity of the Warrant Judge Foschio recommended that suppression be denied because the warrant was sufficiently particular. (R & R at 14-20.) Longo asserts that the agents exceeded the scope of the warrant because an FBI report listed that a document titled TGL-002 was retrieved during the execution of the warrant, rather than TGL-003, which was included in the warrant. (Lon-go Obj. at 22.) 3. Good Faith Exception Judge Foschio found that the agents did act in good faith, recommending that suppression be denied. (R & R at 22.) Lon-go contends that the agents did not act in good faith because FBI Special Agent Gummow passed information that he knew obtained from a warrantless search to another agent, FBI Special Agent Mein-hardt, who incorporated such information in the affidavit supporting the search warrant application. (Longo Reply Obj. at 9-10.) 4. Franks Hearing Judge Foschio concluded that a Franks hearing was not necessary to determine the truthfulness of Agent Meinhardt’s Affidavit statements because Longo failed to make a preliminary showing that the Agent deliberately misled the court. (R & R at 20-25.) Longo argues that a Franks hearing is still required to assess these statements. (Longo Obj. at 15 n. 1; Lon-go Reply Obj. at 10 n. 2.) The Government contends that it is irrelevant whether Me-inhardt misstated facts because there is enough other evidence to support probable cause without Meinhardt’s statements. 5. Recorded Statements Judge Foschio found that the recorded statements were consensual, applying United States v. Bonanno, 487 F.2d 654, 658 (2d Cir.1973) (“It will normally suffice for the Government to show that the informer went ahead with the call after knowing what the law enforcement officers were about.”). (R & R at 3.9-43.) Neither party objects to Judge Foschio’s findings. 6. Longo’s Warrantless Search Claim Longo contends that his legal secretary, Caroline Schweter, acted as an agent of the Government and consequently, her actions amounted to a search, the effect of which was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. (Longo Obj. at 8-10, 18-20.) Judge Foschio recommended that suppression, and an evidentiary hearing to determine the extent of Schweter’s conduct be denied because Caroline Schweter was not an agent of the Government. (R & R at 38.) B. Attorney-Client Privilege Judge Foschio recommended that the relief requested cannot be granted on the basis of a violation of attorney-client privilege because Longo waived the attorney-client privilege. (R & R at 46, 47 .) Longo claims that it is not possible to waive the privilege when communicating to a third party when that third party is an agent of the Government. (Longo Obj. at 27-33.) C. Sixth Amendment Claims Judge Foschio recommended that Longo was not entitled to the relief requested on this basis because Longo’s Sixth Amendment rights were not violated. Longo claims that his rights were violated because the Government, acting through Caroline Schweter, interfered with Longo’s right to counsel. D. Disciplinary Rule 7-104 of the Code of Responsibility Claim Judge Foschio recommended that suppression on this ground be denied because the Disciplinary Rule is not applicable. (R & R at 56.) The Disciplinary Rule prohibits an attorney from communicating with a represented party. (R & R at 52.) Longo contends that the Government contacted him via Ms. Schweter. Judge Foschio rejected this argument because Ms. Schweter was not acting on behalf of the Government and because the FBI and DEA agents that she had contact with are not attorneys and, therefore, the Disciplinary Rules are not applicable. (R & R at 53-54.) Longo reiterates his previous argument and contends that AUSA Kennedy knew of and acquiesced in Ms. Schweter’s actions, and therefore, the Disciplinary Rule does apply. (Longo Obj. at 31-34.) E. Fifth Amendment Claims Judge Foschio recommended that dismissal of the Indictment be denied because due process has not been violated since Longo failed to demonstrate “outrageous conduct” and that an evidentiary hearing was not required on this issue. (R & R 57-59.) Longo contends that the Government used Ms. Schweter to eavesdrop upon privileged information and this warrants dismissal. (Longo Obj. at 31.) F.Longo’s Request for an Evidentiary Hearing Judge Foschio denied Longo’s request for an evidentiary hearing because Longo failed to demonstrate that such a hearing is warranted. (R & R at 57.) Longo asserts that absent such a hearing, Judge Foschio’s recommendations are the product of a flawed legal process based on selective disclosure by the Government. (Longo Obj. at 24.) Longo contends that there are sufficient, definite, specific, and detailed facts, including those disclosed in the Government’s own papers, that warrant holding a hearing. (Id. at 18-19.) The Government agrees with Judge Foschio that Longo did not offer non-conjectural facts that entitled him to relief. (Gov’t Resp.Obj. at 16.) In addition, the Government argues that because Longo is not ultimately entitled to the relief which he seeks, in that Judge Foschio recommended denial of suppression, Longo is not entitled to a hearing. (Id. at 18-19.) IY. ORAL ARGUMENT On June 23, 1999, this Court heard oral argument on Defendant Longo’s appeal of the Decision and Order and his objections to the Report and Recommendation. This Court heard argument after conducting a thorough review of the voluminous record on these issues, including the submissions to this Court as well as the record before Judge Foschio. Based on this review, this Court determined that, rather than conduct argument on motion by motion, or an issue by issue, basis, it would be most constructive to examine the details of Schweter’s involvement in this case, including her interaction with the Government. This Court approached oral argument accordingly. At oral argument, this Court requested that Longo elaborate on his grounds for suppression of evidence seized from his law office computer and/or for an eviden-tiary hearing to determine the extent of Schweter’s involvement with the Government. Stressing that Schweter acted as an agent of the Government and consequently, her actions amounted to a search, Longo argued that this involvement touched on a multitude of the grounds for the relief requested, including violations of the Fourth Amendment, the Sixth Amendment, and attorney-client privilege. Longo asserted that, at the threshold, Judge Foschio could not make a proper decision on Longo’s motion because he was not first afforded a hearing. Longo contended that there was a fundamental flaw in Judge Foschio’s reasoning because the Government was allowed to refute Longo’s preliminary showings with one-sided evasive versions of the facts and that artfully drafted affidavits should not be sufficient to keep Longo from having a hearing. Longo claimed that he should now be allowed the hearing in an effort to remedy these problems. Given an opportunity to elaborate on these arguments, Longo analogized Schweter to a listening device placed in his law office by the Government and asserted that once an illegal search is conducted, the Government then cannot remedy the illegal search by subsequently conducting a legal search. Relying on the argument that the Fourth Amendment is designed to be a deterrent, Longo argued that it is irrelevant whether the warrant authorizing the second search contained sufficient probable cause irrespective of Schweter’s actions. Furthermore, Longo insisted that the argument that Schweter’s actions helped narrow the search is tantamount to a situation where the Government seeks to locate drugs that it knows are hidden somewhere in a large warehouse by asking a warehouse guard where the drugs are hidden, thereby obtaining the requisite particularity to support the issuance of a warrant. Longo claims this is what the Government did by using Schweter to obtain the requisite particularity to support the warrant application because of the suspicions that the certain documents could be located in Longo’s law office. Longo also reasserted his argument that the Government agents exceeded the scope of the warrant because an FBI report listed that a document titled TGL-002 was retrieved during the execution of the warrant, rather than TGL-003, which was included in the warrant. Longo contended that Judge Foschio inappropriately found that the file name discrepancy was the product of a typographical error. Longo claims that this conclusion was inappropriate because the Government did not even raise this argument. Longo also emphasized his contentions regarding the alleged violation of the attorney-client privilege. Longo asserted that the Government should have known that Longo was represented because Lon-go and his attorney questioned Schweter about her testimony to the Grand Jury. Longo contends that because Schweter was an agent of the Government that the Government therefore, should have realized that Longo was represented at this point. Longo claims that any contact subsequent to this incident is strictly forbidden because the Government knew Longo to be represented. This Court considered these arguments, and the Government’s responses, in a de novo review of Longo’s objections to Judge Foschio’s Report and Recommendation. Following this de novo review and a consideration of the voluminous record in this case, this Court adopts Judge Foschio’s recommendations that: the warrant was supported by independent probable cause, (see R & R at 10-14); the warrant was sufficiently particular, (see R & R at 14-20); the involvement of Caroline Schweter in this case does not support Longo’s request for suppression or for an evidentiary hearing to determine the extent of Schweter’s conduct, (see R & R at 25-38); and there was no violation of the attorney-client privilege. (See R & R at 44-52). In addition, this Court conducted a de novo review Judge Foschio’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety in the context of the arguments raised in the submissions to this Court as augmented by oral argument. Based on this review, this Court adopts Judge Foschio’s Report and Recommendation. As such, Defendant Lon-go’s motion to suppress evidence and/or to conduct evidentiary hearings, and to conduct a Franks hearing is denied. CONCLUSION After a careful review of the Report and Recommendation, the Decision and Order, the pleadings, and materials submitted by both parties, this Court rejects Longo’s appeal of Judge Foschio’s Decision and Order and Longo’s objections to the Report and Recommendation. Having reviewed the relevant legal authority and considered the parties’ arguments as to the law and the facts, this Court adopts the reasoning of Judge Foschio’s Decision and Order and his Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, this Court denies Defendant Longo’s motion to suppress evidence and/or to conduct evidentiary hearings, and to conduct a Franks hearing is denied. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this Court rejects Defendant Longo’s appeal of Judge Foschio’s Decision and Order. FURTHER, this Court rejects Defendant Longo’s objections to Judge Foschio’s Report and Recommendation. FURTHER, Defendant Longo’s motion to suppress evidence and/or to conduct evidentiary hearings, and to conduct a Franks hearing is DENIED. SO ORDERED. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOSCHIO, United States Magistrate Judge. JURISDICTION This matter was referred to the undersigned by the Honorable William J. Skret-ny on February 4, 1999 for disposition of all pretrial matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). It is presently before the court on the Defendant’s Omnibus Motions for Discovery and to suppress evidence, filed October 5, 1998 (Docket Item No. 43). BACKGROUND Defendant Thomas G. Longo (“Defendant”) was charged in a four count indictment on September 19, 1997 with violations of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), § 846, and 18 U.S.C. § 2, § 1952(a)(3). Specifically, Defendant is charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana, and with attempt to possess with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana. Defendant is also charged with conspiracy to travel interstate, and traveling interstate, with the intent to carry on an unlawful activity through the use of a business enterprise involving the unlawful distribution of marijuana. Defendant has filed omnibus motions seeking suppression of evidence seized from his law office computer; suppression of recorded conversations between Defendant and Lester Williams, an unindicted coconspirator. Alternatively, Defendant seeks an evidentiary hearing to resolve several disputed issues. Defendant also seeks a hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978) directed to an affidavit by Howard Meinhardt. The Government filed, on September 28, 1998, its Response to Defendant’s motion (Docket Item No. 41) (“Government’s Response”). In its response, the Government submitted an unredacted version of the search warrant, an unredacted version of the affidavit submitted in support of the search warrant, and the exhibits attached to the search warrant to Defendant. The Government also disclosed four reports by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) detailing the property seized during the search of Defendant’s law office. Defendant submitted a Reply Memorandum of Law on October 5, 1998 (Docket Item No. 43) (“Defendant’s Reply Memorandum”). The Government submitted a Reply Affidavit in Response to Defendant’s Motion on October 15, 1998 (Docket Item No. 45) (“Government’s Reply Affidavit”). Oral argument was conducted on October 15,1998. Defendant submitted a Supplemental Memorandum of Law on November 24, 1998 (Docket Item No. 50) (“Defendant’s Supplemental Memorandum of Law”). The Government submitted a Supplemental Response to Defendant’s motion on December 4, 1998 (Docket Item No. 51) (“Government’s Supplemental Response”). For the reasons which follow, Defendant’s motions should be DENIED. FACTS On or about March 12, 1996, agents of the United States Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) in Buffalo arrested two individuals, Lester Williams and William Cope, after they attempted to purchase 1,000 pounds of marijuana from undercover DEA agents. Affidavit of Howard J. Meinhardt, Exhibit A to Government’s Response (“Meinhardt Affidavit”) at 2. At the time of this arrest, DEA agents in Buffalo seized approximately $146,000 which represented the down payment on the marijuana. Id. Following their arrests, both Williams and Cope agreed to cooperate with the Government. As a result of Williams’ cooperation, DEA Agents in Buffalo learned that Williams and Defendant had been business partners in a bar and restaurant named Wizard’s Inn, in the Cleveland, Ohio area. Meinhardt Affidavit at 2. In July of 1995, the Wizard’s Inn was destroyed by fire, and as the result of an insurance settlement, on January 30, 1996, a check in the amount of $130,000 was deposited in a bank account for which Defendant was the sole signator. Id. On February 29, 1996, Defendant directed his legal secretary, Caroline Schweter, to prepare two bank drafts, one in the amount of $65,000 payable to Defendant, and the other in the amount of $65,000 payable to Williams. Government’s Response at 4. Defendant and Williams then traveled to Atlantic City on March 1, 1996, depositing these official checks at a casino. Meinhardt Affidavit at 3; Government’s Response at 4. Having converted the two $65,000 checks into cash, Defendant and Williams returned to Cleveland. Id. On March 11, 1996, Defendant provided to Williams part of his $65,000 share of the insurance proceeds, allegedly to be used in making a down payment for the purchase of 1,000 pounds of marijuana in Buffalo on March 12, 1996. Meinhardt Affidavit at 3. Following his arrest, on April 5, 1996, Williams engaged in secretly recorded conversations with Defendant. Transcript of Recorded Conversation (“Transcript”), Exhibit C to Defendant’s Exhibits Accompanying Omnibus Motions, filed September 29, 1998 (Docket Item No. 42) (“Defendant’s Exhibits”). A grand jury was empaneled on May 3, 1996 to investigate Defendant’s involvement with Williams in the attempted purchase of marijuana. According to the government attorney overseeing the investigation, Assistant United States Attorney James P. Kennedy, an individual identifying herself as Defendant’s legal secretary contacted him by phone on October 8, 1996, stating that she had information concerning Kennedy’s investigation of Defendant. Government’s Supplemental Reply Affidavit, attachment to Government’s Supplemental Response, at 1. Kennedy directed the secretary not to remove or review any files located within Defendant’s law office. Id. Kennedy identified this individual as Caroline Schweter, Defendant’s legal secretary. Id. Williams met with Defendant on January 11, 1997, executing two documents, a “Purchase Agreement for Sale of Partnership Interest,” and promissory note. Me-inhardt Affidavit at 4; see Exhibit A to Government’s Response. According to Williams, the promissory note was backdated to reflect a date of February 29, 1996. Id. This backdating was verified by Caroline Schweter. Id. Schweter again contacted Mr. Kennedy on May 22, 1997. Government’s Supplemental Reply Affidavit at 2. According to Kennedy, on this occasion, Schweter advised him that Defendant and his attorney, William Summers, had questioned her regarding her testimony on May 9, 1997 before the federal Grand Jury investigating Defendant. Id. Kennedy stated that he first received contact from an attorney representing Defendant on June 9,1997, in a telephone call from Mr. Summers. Id. Defendant was charged in the instant four count indictment on September 19, 1997 as stated with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana, and with attempt to possess with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana. Defendant was also charged with conspiracy to travel interstate, and traveling interstate, with the intent to carry on an unlawful activity through the use of a business enterprise involving the unlawful distribution of marijuana. Indictment, Exhibit A to Government’s Response. Following the return of the Indictment, Caroline Schweter contacted Special Agent Dale Kasprzyk of the DEA’s Buffalo Office on September 22, 1997. Mein-hardt Affidavit at 5. During this conversation Schweter advised Kasprzyk that on September 22, 1997, Defendant had approached her and inquired about the nature of her testimony before the Grand Jury on May 9, 1997. Id. Specifically, Schweter told Kasprzyk that Defendant had questioned whether she had been asked during the Grand Jury proceeding about the promissory note which she had typed and backdated at Defendant’s direction. Id. Schweter averred that Defendant advised her that if asked, she should testify that the promissory note was prepared on or before February 29 1996. Id. Defendant also inquired as to whether the note and agreement executed between Defendant and Williams on January 11, 1997 remained stored in digital form on the computer; Schweter told Defendant that she believed they were still so stored. Id. at 5-6. According to Meinhardt, Defendant advised Schweter that he intended to have her remove such files from the computer when he returned to the office on September 24, 1997, following his arraignment in Buffalo on September 23, 1997. Id. at 6. After Kennedy was informed by Ka-sprzyk of this information, he contacted agents of the FBI’s Cleveland Office on September 23, 1997. Schweter then spoke with FBI Special Agent Barry Gummow on the same date, advising him that a copy of the promissory note and purchase agreement were stored in the computer at Defendant’s law office. Meinhardt Affidavit at 6. Specifically, Schweter informed Gummow that the promissory note was located in a directory entitled “MISC.”, under the file name “TGL-003,” and the purchase agreement was in the directory entitled “IMF” under the file name “911.” Id. Schweter also provided a schematic diagram of Defendant’s law office, indicating where the computer was located. Id. at 7. Agent Gummow reported this information to FBI Special Agent Howard Me-inhardt, who completed an affidavit to support an application for a search warrant directed to the computer files. Id. On September 23, 1997, FBI agents in Cleveland sought and obtained a search warrant from the Honorable Patricia A. Hemann, United States Magistrate Judge for the Northern District of Ohio. See Exhibit B to Government’s Response. The warrant called for the seizure of two files from Defendant’s law office computer, one a promissory note, entitled TGL-003, contained within the directory labeled “MISC.”, and the other a purchase agreement entitled 911, contained in the directory labeled “IMF.” Id. Four FBI agents, including Agents Gummow and Meinhardt, executed the search warrant at approximately 5:55 P.M. on September 23, 1997. Government’s Response at 9. At that time, the agents were met by Mr. Edwin J. Vargas, an attorney who stated that he was representing Defendant. According to the Government, Vargas was presented a copy of the search warrant. Id. The agents completed the search at approximately 8:25 P.M. on September 23, 1997. Id. Agent Gummow prepared a report of the property received and presented it to Mr. Vargas, who signed the report. Id. at 10. According to this report, during the September 23, 1997 search of Defendant’s law office computer, the Government seized (1) a directory listing of the hard drive contained on the computer used by Caroline Schweter at Defendant’s law office, and (2) computer files copied to a computer disk retained by the Government, “C:*W IN-WORD*MISC*TGL-003.DOC,” and “C:*WINWORD*IMF*911.DOC;” and identical copies of these files gathered from two compact discs labeled “Backup 8-27-97” and “Backup 1-12-97” and stored to a computer disk retained by the Government. Exhibits F, G to Government’s Response. DISCUSSION 1. Defendant’s Fourth Amendment Claims Defendant claims that suppression of the evidence seized by the Government is required as (1) the Government lacked probable cause to support its search warrant; (2) the search warrant lacked sufficient particularity; and (3) the Government, through Defendant’s secretary, Caroline Schweter, conducted a warrant-less search of Defendant’s law office computer. Defendant’s Motion at 20, 13, and 16. Defendant also seeks a hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978) directed to an affidavit submitted by Howard J. Meinhardt. Id. at 21. Finally, Defendant claims that suppression of any recorded conversations between Defendant and Lester Williams is required, as the Government has failed to demonstrate Williams’ voluntarily consent to such recordings. Id. at 21-22. The Fourth Amendment states, in relevant part, that “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” U.S. Const, amend. IV. Under the exclusionary rule, as applicable in federal prosecution, evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in a criminal proceeding against the victim of the illegal search and seizure. Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 398, 34 S.Ct. 341, 58 L.Ed. 652 (1914); see also Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 649, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961). This prohibition applies as well to the fruits of the illegally seized evidence. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 486, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963); Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385, 392, 40 S.Ct. 182, 64 L.Ed. 319 (1920). A defendant seeking the suppression of evidence is not automatically entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the claim, but must make a preliminary showing of facts which, if proved would require the granting of relief. United States v. Pena, 961 F.2d 333, 339 (2d Cir.1992). To meet that burden a defendant must, at a minimum, present his or her claim through an affidavit of an individual with personal knowledge of the relevant facts. United States v. Gillette, 383 F.2d 843, 848-49 (2d Cir.1967); United States v. Ventura, 1998 WL 186737, *1 (S.D.N.Y.1998); United States v. Vasta, 649 F.Supp. 974, 986 (S.D.N.Y.1986). Such an affidavit must contain allegations that are “definite, specific, detailed and nonconjectural.” Pena, supra, at 339. a. Search Warrant for Defendant’s Computer Files 1. Probable Cause Defendant argues that the fruits of the Government’s September 23, 1997 search resulting in the seizure of computer files must be suppressed as the Government lacked probable cause to support its search warrant. Defendant’s Motion at 20. In determining whether probable cause for a search warrant exists, the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, commonsense decision whether, given the “totality of the circumstances” set forth in the affidavit, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238-39, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). An issuing judge’s determination of probable cause will be upheld if she had a “substantial basis for concluding that a search would uncover evidence of wrongdoing.” Gates, supra, at 236, 103 S.Ct. 2317. Tin affidavit in support of an application for a search warrant demonstrates a proper showing of probable cause when it sets forth facts which are sufficient to induce a reasonably prudent person to believe that a search of the areas described within the warrant will uncover evidence of a crime. Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41, 55, 87 S.Ct. 1873, 18 L.Ed.2d 1040 (1967). The quantum of proof necessary to establish probable cause is “only the probability, and not a prima facie showing, of criminal activity....” Gates, supra (quoting Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 419, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969)). Significantly, a judge’s determination of probable cause should be given great deference by a reviewing court. Gates, supra, at 236, 103 S.Ct. 2317; United States v. Nichols, 912 F.2d 598, 602 (2d Cir.1990). The resolution of marginal cases should be determined with regard to the preference accorded to warrants. Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 270, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960). In this case, the Affidavit of Agent Howard J. Meinhardt, submitted by the Government in support of its application for a search warrant for Defendant’s law office, supports a finding of probable cause. See Exhibit A to Government’s Response. The Meinhardt Affidavit contains statements detailing illegal activity by Defendant related to the charges in the Indictment, and is based on inform a,tion provided by Defendant’s Grand Jury indictment, the government informant, Lester Williams, as well as information provided by Defendant’s legal secretary, Caroline Schweter. Meinhardt Affidavit at 2. Specifically, the Meinhardt Affidavit stated that Defendant and Williams executed a promissory note and purchase agreement on January 11, 1997, and Defendant backdated the promissory note to reflect a date of February 29, 1996. Id. at 4. Additionally, Meinhardt had been informed by DEA agents that Defendant made statements during secretly recorded conversations with Williams on April 5, 1996, inferring that he had provided a portion of the insurance proceeds to Williams as a down payment for the marijuana. Meinhardt Affidavit at 3. At the time of its application for a search warrant, the Government was in possession of the original promissory note and purchase agreement executed between Defendant and Lester Williams. These documents were incorporated by reference in the search warrant as issued by Judge He-mann. Exhibit B to Government’s Response. Williams provided information about the nature of Defendant’s criminal activity, reporting that Defendant and Williams had been partners in a bar and restaurant which was destroyed by fire. Meinhardt Affidavit at 2. According to Williams, Defendant recovered $130,000 as a result of an insurance settlement for the destruction of this establishment. Id. at 3. Defendant then directed that two bank drafts, each in the amount of $65,000 be made payable to Defendant and Lester Williams. Id. at 3. Defendant and Williams converted these bank drafts into $130,000 in cash during a trip to Atlantic City. Id. On March 11, 1996 Defendant provided Williams all or part of his share of the insurance proceeds, allegedly for the purchase of 1,000 pounds of marijuana in Buffalo, New York on March 12,1996. Id. Williams submitted to the Government a promissory note and purchase agreement executed between Defendant and Williams on January 11, 1997, providing for the distribution of $65,000 to Williams by Defendant. Meinhardt Affidavit at 4. Williams averred that the promissory note had been backdated to February 29, 1996 at the time he signed it. Id.; see also Exhibit A to Government’s Response. In the Affidavit, Agent Meinhardt opined, based on his experience, that these documents were executed by Defendant and Williams to create the appearance that the Defendant’s payment of $65,000 to Williams was a legitimate business transaction. Meinhardt Affidavit at 5. Caroline Schweter, Defendant’s legal secretary, confirmed the existence of both the promissory note and purchase agreement in Defendant’s computer. Id. These aver-ments as to the execution of the promissory note and purchase agreement, and backdating of the promissory note, provided a factual basis upon which the transaction could reasonably be found to be a fraudulent attempt to disguise the true nature of Defendant’s involvement in the underlying criminality. See United States v. Hunter, 13 F.Supp.2d 574, 580 (D.Vt.1998) (search of defendant’s law office for evidence of money laundering was supported by probable cause, as DEA agent’s affidavit accompanying warrant application contained information gathered from informant who was defendant’s client and participant along with Defendant in alleged money laundering schemes). Based on Meinhardt’s experience, he was of the opinion that Defendant’s law office computer would contain evidence of narcotics trafficking. United States v. Riley, 906 F.2d 841, 845 (2d Cir.1990); United States v. Fama, 758 F.2d 884, 838 (2d Cir.1985) (agent’s expert opinion is an important factor to be considered by judicial officer with regard to warrant application and should also be considered in determining whether warrant was executed in good faith). Based on the Meinhardt Affidavit, including information gathered from Williams and Schweter, particularly when evaluated along with the Defendant’s Indictment on the instant charges, a reasonably prudent person would believe that a search of Defendant’s law office computer would uncover evidence of a crime. Berger, supra, at 55, 87 S.Ct. 1873. The Mein-hardt Affidavit therefore provides sufficient probable cause to support the search warrant issued by Judge Hemann on September 23, 1997. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for suppression on the ground that the search warrant lacked probable cause should be DENIED. 2. Particularity In his discovery motion, Defendant attacks the particularity of the search warrant. See Defendant’s Motion at 13. Defendant argues that “[s]ince the search party at the firm served a copy of a search warrant devoid of exhibits, presumptively they traveled themselves under such a warrant and executed the search in reliance on a defective instrument.” Id. at 13. However, the search warrant was sufficiently particular regardless of the presence of the exhibits. It is basic that a search warrant must describe with particularity “the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized,” U.S. Const, amend IV, to prevent a “general, exploratory rummaging in a person’s belongings.” Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 467, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971); United States v. Bianco, 998 F.2d 1112, 1115 (2d Cir.1993); United States v. George, 975 F.2d 72, 75 (2d Cir.1992). Depending on the circumstances, a warrant need not specifically describe the items to be seized provided the officers seeking the warrant “have acquired all the descriptive facts which a reasonable investigation could be expected to cover, and have assured that all those facts were included in the warrant.” United States v. Young, 745 F.2d 733, 759 (2d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1084, 105 S.Ct. 1842, 85 L.Ed.2d 142 (1985). A warrant is sufficiently particular under the Fourth Amendment if it enables the executing officer to ascertain and identify with reasonable certainty those items that the issuing magistrate has authorized him to seize. George, supra, at 75 (citing Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79, 84, 107 S.Ct. 1013, 94 L.Ed.2d 72 (1987)). “Mere reference to ‘evidence’ of a violation of a broad criminal statute or general criminal activity provides no readily ascertainable guidelines for the executing officers as to what items to seize.” George, supra, at 76 (citing cases). The particularity requirement renders a general search impermissible and prevents the seizure of one thing under a warrant describing another. Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192, 196, 48 S.Ct. 74, 72 L.Ed. 231 (1927); see also Young, supra, at 758. “As to what is to be taken, nothing is left to the discretion of the officer executing the warrant.” Marron, supra, at 196, 48 S.Ct. 74; see also Young, supra, at 758. While the purpose of the particularity requirement is to avoid leaving to “the unguided discretion of the officers executing the warrant the decision as to what items may be seized,” (United States v. Riley, 906 F.2d 841, 844 (2d Cir.1990), citing Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463, 480, 96 S.Ct. 2737, 49 L.Ed.2d 627 (1976) and Marrón v. United States, supra), the particularity requirement is not so exacting as to eliminate all discretion of the executing officers. United States v. Riley, supra. “Once a category of seizable papers has been adequately described, with the description delineated in part by an illustrative list of seizable items, the Fourth Amendment is not violated because the officers executing the warrant must exercise some minimal judgment.-...” United States v. Riley, supra, at 845. As the court in Hunter, supra, stated, “[a] finding of probable cause is not predicated on the government’s knowing precisely how certain records are stored.” Hunter, supra, at 581. In the present, case, the search warrant was sufficiently particular. The warrant authorizes a search of the hard drive and any data disks of the computer used by Schweter, for two documents, one a promissory note, entitled TGL-003, contained within the directory labeled MISC. and a purchase agreement entitled 911, contained in the directory entitled IMF (hard copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibits B and C respectively). Exhibit B to Government’s Response. The warrant therefore specifically described the area to be searched, including the locations and file names of the items to be seized, and was sufficiently particular regardless of the presence of any exhibits. Defendant argues that, absent the promissory note and purchase agreement, the search warrant lacked sufficient particularity, and therefore, given the absence of the exhibits from the search warrant at the time of its execution, the agents may have exceeded the scope of the original search warrant. Transcript of Oral Argument at 29-36. Defendant also argues that the agents exceeded the scope of the search warrant based on an inventory of the items seized contained in an FBI report dated September 15,1998. Id. As the warrant was sufficiently particular and probable cause to search existed independent of the exhibits, Defendant’s argument that the agents exceeded the scope of the search warrant based on the absence of these exhibits is moot. Assuming, arguendo, that the absence of these exhibits rendered the search warrant “defective,” as Defendant asserts, the Mein-hardt Affidavit provided sufficient detail to confine the scope of the Government’s search, and the agents had sufficient information to confine the scope of their search. See Bianco, supra, at 1117 (lack of particularity in search warrant remedied by executing agents’ knowledge of the scope of search, derived from details provided in unattached affidavit, and presence at time of search of agent who had read affidavit); George, supra, at 76 (where sufficiently detailed affidavit is incorporated by reference in the warrant itself and attached to it, probable cause may exist regardless of lack of particularity in warrant). The search warrant application incorporates the Meinhardt Affidavit by reference, and Defendant does not dispute that the agents were aware of its content at the time of the search. See Transcript of Oral Argument at 34. Further Agent Meinhardt, who had prepared the affidavit submitted by the Government in applying for the search warrant, participated in the execution of the search. Bianco, supra, at 1117 (although search warrant failed to particularly describe property to be seized, no violation of particularity requirement occurred, where search warrant affidavit was specific in describing evidence sought, affidavit was present at time of search, and agent who supervised search had familiarized himself with warrant and supporting affidavit); United States v. Fronk, 173 F.R.D. 59, 73 (W.D.N.Y.1997) (although the warrant itself was insufficiently particular, the same DEA agent who submitted the affidavit in support of the warrant participated in the execution of the warrant, therefore affidavit incorporated by reference into search warrant and no Fourth Amendment violation). Defendant also argues that the agents exceeded the scope of the warrant based on the contents of an FBI report dated September 15, 1998. Transcript of Oral Argument at 29-30. The search warrant stated that two computer files, “TGL-003” and “911” were the target of the search. Exhibit A to Government’s Response. An FBI Form 302 report dated September 24, 1997, in describing the search of Defendant’s computer, states that two files, “911.DOC” and “TGL-003.DOC” were copied to a diskette retained by the searching agents. See Exhibit G to Government’s Response. However, the September 15, 1998 FBI Report states that a search of the files copied revealed two documents, “TGL-002.DOC” and “TGL-003.DOC.” Id. At oral argument, Defendant alleged that the inclusion of “TGL-002.DOC” on this report is evidence that the Government exceeded the scope of the search warrant. Transcript at 29-30. However, the parties have not addressed this claim in their subsequent filings with the court. Based on the evidence submitted, the court finds the discrepancy in the file names represents mo