DOJ-OGR-00011461.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 734 Filed 07/15/22 Page11of16 November 19, 2021 Page Eleven Islands’ probate court order approving the program—and the associated, mandatory confidentiality protections of the Protocol—provides yet another reason to quash the subpoena.” See THCF Med. Clinic Recs., 504 F. Supp. 2d at 1090 (quashing subpoena in part where, by complying, state “would be violating its own laws”). Because compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive, this Court should quash the subpoena. Compliance would also be unreasonable or oppressive because all the information Maxwell seeks is “otherwise procurable” or, indeed, already in Ms. Maxwell’s possession. See United States v. Pena, No. 15 Cr. 551 (AJN), 2016 WL 8735699, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 12, 2016) (subpoena proponent must show materials are “not otherwise procurable” (citation omitted)). As noted, Maxwell previously sought to subpoena Boies Schiller and four individuals for EVCP material and was denied without prejudice,** but she apparently has not sought to renew those requests. Instead, she decided to direct her subpoena at a different source: the EVCP’s administrator. While the EVCP cannot divine the reason behind that shift in legal strategy, it appears as if she is attempting to do an end run around the Court’s prior rulings or believes that renewing those requests will be unfruitful. The EVCP is not suggesting that Ms. Maxwell renew her earlier requests directed at EVCP claimants. The EVCP believes that no participant should be required to turn over their confidential submissions against their wishes. But there are alternative ways to obtain the information she seeks, such as on cross-examination at trial, to the extent permissible. And—in the case of releases Maxwell seeks—at least two courts in this 47 See Ex. A § 13 (Feldman Decl.). 48 ECF Nos. 252, 334. DOJ-OGR-00011461