DOJ-OGR-00011430.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 732 Filed 07/14/22 Page /7 of 25 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan November 22, 2021 Page 7 (“Nor was its evidentiary relevance under Rule 401 affected by the availability of alternative proofs of the element to which it went... . If, then, relevant evidence is inadmissible in the presence of other evidence related to it, its exclusion must rest not on the ground that the other evidence has rendered it ‘irrelevant.’” (citing Fed. R. Evid. 401, 1972 Advisory Committee Notes)). Evidence is either relevant or it isn’t, and “unless an exception applies, all ‘relevant evidence is admissible.’” White, 692 F.3d at 246. Under this “very low” standard and “very broad” definition, the materials Ms. Maxwell seeks are relevant. Of the four motions to quash, only the government and Accuser-2 dispute the relevance of the requested materials. Govt. Mot. at 3-8; Accuser-2 Mot. at 3. For her part, Accuser-2’s argument is both undeveloped and misplaced. Accuser-2 Mot. at 3. Accuser-2 relies on this Court’s earlier orders declining to issue a twelve-request subpoena directed to BSF. That decision has no bearing on the motions to quash filed here. Here, the subpoena is directed to the custodian of the relevant documents (the EVCP) and not to a different third party. The subpoena is also more narrowly tailored, including just four requests rather than twelve. In addition, the subpoena is returnable at tria/, not pretrial. And most significantly, now unlike then, the Court isswed the requested subpoena after considering Ms. Maxwell’s brief in support. Because a Court “must be satisfied that the subpoena complies with the requirements of the Rule” before the Court “issues a Rule 17(c) subpoena,” the Court has already (if preliminarily) determined that Ms. Maxwell’s subpoena to be proper. Nachamie, 91 F. Supp. 2d at 561 (citing Tomison, 969 F. Supp. at 594 (“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.”)). Accuser-2’s relevance argument fails. DOJ-OGR-00011430