DOJ-OGR-00011464.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 734 Filed 07/15/22 Page14of16 November 19, 2021 Page Fourteen and protection from disclosure under applicable law.”>4 That the EVCP was designed to invoke the exclusionary protections of provisions like Rule 408 is plain. As such, the documents Maxwell seeks are not admissible “on behalf of any party” to either prove or disprove the validity of a claim or—as especially important here, given the Court’s prior recognition that Maxwell sought EVCP Material from Boies Schiller “for impeachment”*>—to “impeach by a prior inconsistent statement or a contradiction.” Fed. R. Evid. 408(a). Because the documents are inadmissible, the subpoena fails to meet the Nixon test and should be quashed. Rule 408’s limited exceptions to inadmissibility are not applicable here and do not favor upholding the subpoena. First, while Rule 408(a)(2) provides a limited exception to inadmissibility for statements or conduct “when offered in a criminal case and when the negotiations related to a claim by a public office in the exercise of its regulatory, investigative, or enforcement authority,” that exception does not apply here, where the underlying claims (i.e., the victims’ claims for sexual abuse against Epstein) were private matters, not “related to a claim by a public office.” See United States v. Davis, No. Crim. 09-343, 2009 WL 3646459, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 4, 2009) (“Since the agreement was entered into between private parties, it does not fall into the limited exception enunciated in 408(a)(2) involving compromise negotiations with a public agency.”). And while under Rule 408(b), the Court “may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as proving a witness’s bias or prejudice,” we are unaware of Maxwell having demonstrated how the materials she seeks would demonstrate “bias or prejudice” (including for the reasons in the government’s motion) as opposed to being impermissibly used to “impeach by a prior 4 Ex. D at 8 n.1 (Protocol). >> ECF No. 252 at 7. DOJ-OGR-00011464