DOJ-OGR-00015094.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 803 _ Filed 08/05/25 Page8sof9 government in Jn re Biaggi moved to unseal Biaggi’s grand jury testimony only after Biaggi petitioned a three-judge panel in the Southern District of New York to examine his grand jury testimony and publicly report whether he had invoked any constitutional privileges relating to his personal finances or assets. Id. at 491. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s order directing the public disclosure of Biaggi’s testimony based solely on his waiver, finding that “no matter how much, or how legitimately, the public may want to know whether a candidate for high public office has invoked the privilege against self-incrimination before a grand jury, or has lied about having done so, that interest must generally yield to the larger one of preserving the salutary rule of law embodied in Rule 6(e) of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. But that is not this case.” Id. at 493 (emphasis added). Maxwell, unlike Biaggi, has preserved her right to grand jury secrecy and vigorously opposes disclosure of the grand jury materials. Lastly, the Florida case the government cites, CA Florida Holdings v. Dave Aronberg, has no precedential value in this jurisdiction and involved a civil suit under Florida public records law, not federal grand jury materials protected under Rule 6(e). See Order Granting Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration of the Trial Court’s February 29, 2024 Order, CA Florida Holdings, LLC v. Dave Aronberg and Joseph Abruzzo, 50-2019 CA-014681 (15th Cir. July 1, 2024). It is wholly inapposite. There is no precedent for unsealing grand jury transcripts in an ongoing matter like Maxwell’s case. Accordingly, the government’s motion should be denied. MARKUS/MOSS 8 DOJ-OGR-00015094