DOJ-OGR-00015118.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 804 _ Filed 08/06/25 Page 23 of 27 Neil 5. Binder Binder & Sehwastz LLP (Ty 212 510.7031 675 Third Avenue, 26th Floor (Py 212.510.7299 New York, NY 10017 ubindex(ajbinderschwartz com CONFIDENTIAL — SUBMITTED UNDER SEAL August 5, 2025 Hon. Paul A. Engelmayer United States District Judge Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 Re: United States v. Maxwell, No. 20-cr-330 (S.D.N.Y.) Dear Judge Engelmayer: We represent On the late afternoon of Friday, August 1, through different counsel, were ormed by the U.S. Department of Justice (““DOJ” or “the government”) that they are referenced in some capacity in the sealed grand jury materials that are the subject of DOJ’s recent motion for unsealing. See U.S. Mot. to Unseal Grand Jury Trs., July 18, 2025, Dkt. No. 785. requested from the government information about the context in which are named in these materials in order to inform our arguments regarding the continued sealing of the grand jury materials. The government has declined to provide us with any information. Absent such information, we cannot respond with specificity to any reference in the record concerning Specificity in this context may not be required, however, as Supreme Court precedent and caselaw in this Circuit make clear what this Court recognized in its July 22, 2025 Order—i.e., that there is “long-established policy [of] maintain[ing] the secrecy of the grand jury proceedings in the federal courts.” United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 681 (1958); see also In re Grand Jury Investigation of Cuisinarts, Inc., 665 F.2d 24, 28 (2d Cir. 1981) (“This time-honored policy of secrecy has been the most essential, indeed indispensable, characteristic of grand jury proceedings.”). Indeed, this requirement of secrecy has been codified in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e). While the Second Circuit has recognized that there are certain “special circumstances” outside of Rule 6(e)! that may justify the unsealing of grand jury records, the burden of demonstrating those special circumstances is even greater than the already heavy burden of demonstrating the applicability of one of the exceptions enumerated in Rule 6(e). See In re Petition of Craig, 131 F.3d 99, 106 n.10 (2d Cir. 1997). ! The government does not point to any of the statutory exceptions enumerated in Rule 6(e) to justify the need for disclosure here, instead relying solely on “special circumstances” outside the bounds of those exceptions as articulated in Jn re Petition of Craig, 131 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 1997). U.S. Mot. to Unseal Grand Jury Trs. at 3, July 18, 2025, Dkt. No. 785. DOJ-OGR-00015118