DOJ-OGR-00001726.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 42 Filed 08/17/20 Page 3of5 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan August 17, 2020 Page 3 The government relies on two grounds to justify its position: (1) the need “to protect the privacy of the alleged victims,” and (ii) the “lack of any legal precedent” granting such a request. (Gov’t Resp. at 4). Both of these reasons are unpersuasive. As to the privacy interest, the government glosses over the facts and circumstances of this case, which significantly diminish any privacy interest that may exist. As we stated in our initial letter motion, many of Mr. Epstein’s alleged victims are actively litigating civil suits against Ms. Maxwell and have made public statements identifying themselves by name in court proceedings, to the press, and in other public fora. Although we cannot say for certain whether the three individuals referenced in the indictment have done this—because at this point we can only guess who they are—it seems likely that they, too, fall into this category. Furthermore, although these individuals claim to have been minors when the conduct alleged in the indictment occurred roughly 25 years ago, they are no longer minors; they are now adults in their early 40s. Nor has the government argued that these alleged victims would be subject to any risk of intimidation or that they would likely refuse to appear for trial if their identities were disclosed. Hence, any privacy interest that may exist is diminished and should not supersede Ms. Maxwell’s right to prepare her defense to ensure a fair trial. See United States v. Warme, No. 09CR19A, 2009 WL 427111, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 2009) (ordering government to disclose identity of alleged rape victim and stating, “Inasmuch as the government has not demonstrated that disclosing the identity to the defendant would subject the victim to a significant risk, or to increase the likelihood that victim will refuse to appear or testify, the interest of the defendant in being able to prepare a defense outweighs the government’s interest in keeping the name of [the alleged victim] undisclosed.”). The government’s assertion that there is no legal precedent for Ms. Maxwell’s request is incorrect. (Gov’t Resp. at 4). The case law in this Circuit is unambiguous that the Court has the power to grant the requested relief. As we stated in our initial letter, the Second Circuit formally recognized that district courts have the authority to order the disclosure of the identities of government witnesses in United States v. Cannone, 598 F.2d 296, 301 (2d Cir. 1975). Although Cannone, itself, found that the district court abused its discretion in ordering the disclosure of witness identities under the facts of that case, the government acknowledges that this Court has the authority under Cannone to issue such an order in this case. (Gov’t Resp. at 2). The defense also cited in its initial letter United States v. Warme, a directly analogous precedent in which a district court in this Circuit relied on Cannone and its progeny to order the government to disclose the identity of a rape victim to the defendant roughly one month after indictment—the exact same relief that Ms. Maxwell requests here. (Dkt. 38 at 3-4). In Warme, the defendant asked the district court to order the government to disclose the identity of a victim who was allegedly raped by the defendant a little over two years before the indictment was filed, someone if you already know who that person is. Moreover, it raises the question of why the government is unwilling to go the extra step and simply provide the defense with the actual birthdays of the alleged victims. DOJ-OGR-00001726