DOJ-OGR-00015155.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 809 _ Filed 08/11/25 Page 23 of 31 First, as the Second Circuit has explained, the Government’s position is mainly relevant because it reflects whether there is an ongoing need for grand jury secrecy. See In re Craig, 131 F.3d at 106 (where “the government supports a motion for disclosure, that should serve as a preliminary indication that the need for secrecy is not especially strong”). But the central infirmity of this motion to unseal does not concern an ongoing need for secrecy in this case. The infirmity is that, as the Government has conceded, the Maxwell grand jury materials do not reveal information outside the public domain. Second, any argument that the Government’s motion to unseal merits substantial deference is weakened by a host of irregularities with respect to that motion. That motion was not made, nor has it been joined in, by any member of the Government’s trial team—the DOJ lawyers presumably most familiar with the Maxwell case and the broader Epstein-Maxwell investigation. The motion was filed by the DAG alone, without any signatory from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in this District. And it was made under circumstances suggestive of haste rather than reflective deliberation. The motion was three-and-a-half pages in length; there were no supporting materials filed, under seal or otherwise; the motion did not disclose (or reflect awareness of) the summary-witness nature of the Maxwell grand jury testimony; and the motion was made without advance notice to Epstein’s and Maxwell’s victims, a fact which, as reviewed below, has alarmed numerous victims. Only after the Court inquired on that point was notice to victims given. See Dkt. 789; Dkt. 796 at 9. Finally, the Government’s highlighting of the grand jury transcripts did not suggest close familiarity with the Maxwell trial record, because a number of details that it identified as non-public in fact had been testified to during the trial. See note 16, supra. 22 DOJ-OGR-00015155