DOJ-OGR-00011426.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 732 Filed 07/14/22 Page3of25 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan November 22, 2021 Page 3 (4) Any and all releases executed by the accusers. Def. Mot. for Sub, Attachment A. Ms. Maxwell filed a motion for issuance of the subpoena, explaining how her subpoena satisfied Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c) and the standard set forth in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974). Unlike Ms. Maxwell’s earlier subpoena to Boies Schiller & Flexner (BSF), which the Court declined to issue, Dkt. Nos. 252, 298, the Court here authorized and issued Ms. Maxwell’s subpoena to the EVCP, concluding (preliminarily and correctly) that it was proper under Rule 17(c). See Nachamie, 91 F. Supp. 2d at 561 (“As the Supreme Court has explained, it is the responsibility of the court, not the opposing party, to ensure that a subpoena secured under Rule 17(c) is for a proper purpose.” (citing United States v. Tomison, 969 F. Supp. 587, 594 (E.D. Cal. 1997))). Ms. Maxwell’s subpoena seeks production aft trial (not pretrial), and it also requests that before the responsive material is produced to her for inspection, this Court conduct an in camera review. Combined with the narrowness of her request, Ms. Maxwell has suggested careful procedures to balance her need for the material and the accusers’ interests in confidentiality. Everyone agrees that Ms. Maxwell’s subpoena specifically identifies the requested material, and there is no meaningful dispute that the material she seeks is both relevant and not otherwise procurable. (The government and Accuser-2 offer cursory arguments about relevance, which are easily dismissed.) Instead, the disagreement concerns whether the material is admissible and whether enforcement of the subpoena would be unreasonable and oppressive. Considering Ms. Maxwell’s constitutional rights to present a defense and to confront her DOJ-OGR-00011426