DOJ-OGR-00011446.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 732 Filed 07/14/22 Page 23 of 25 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan November 22, 2021 Page 23 ee a DR (cy cannot reasonably claim an entitlement to confidentiality when that entitlement must be balanced against the truth-seeking function of a criminal trial, Ms. Maxwell’s constitutional rights to present a defense and to confrontation, and the stakes involved should Ms. Maxwell be convicted. This Court need not consider whether other claimants have stronger claims to confidentiality than the accusers in this case. Ms. Maxwell does not seek production of materials related to other claimants, and there is no reason to think that production of the materials related to Ms. Maxwell’s accusers—who have not acted to keep confidential their claims against Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell—will somehow impair the functioning of the EVCP in working with others. Indeed, the EVCP is now closed and there is no more work to be done—the cut-off for claims has passed, the money has been paid, and the fund is closed. Moreover, the lack of an objection by either Accuser-1 or Accuser-4 belies the argument that compliance with Ms. Maxwell’s subpoena would be unreasonable or oppressive, at least as to them. See Nachamie, 91 F. Supp. 2d at 564 (concluding compliance would not be unreasonable or oppressive, even though the government moved to quash, given “the absence of objections from all but one doctor’). Finally, Ms. Maxwell’s due process right to equal treatment would be violated were she not entitled to inspect the materials simply because they are “confidential.” U.S. Const. amend. V. The judicial promise of confidentiality Ms. Maxwell received in Giuffre v. Maxwell turned out to be illusory after the government secured an ex parte modification of the protective order DOJ-OGR-00011446