DOJ-OGR-00002358.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 134 Filed 02/04/21 Page 11 of 23 C. The Settlement And Boies Schiller’s Refusal To Comply With The Protective Order In 2017, the parties settled the defamation claim, and the case was dismissed. Giuffre v. Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428, 436 (S.D.N.Y. 2018), vacated and remanded sub nom. Brown, 929 F.3d 41. As the district court found, “a significant, if not determinative, factor” in reaching a settlement was its confidentiality. /d. at 446. After the case was settled and concluded, Maxwell repeatedly invoked Paragraph 12 of the Protective Order and demanded that Giuffre either return or destroy all confidential information, including her deposition transcripts. Boies Schiller refused. eee eee eee eee eee D. The Government’s False Statements To i Only in August 2020, after she was indicted in this case, did Maxwell finally learn that the government had obtained the J file by grand jury subpoena. Maxwell also learned that, to overcome the strictures of the Protective Order, the government had instituted an ex parte proceeding before ee (S.D.N.Y). HH. Needless to say, neither Maxwell nor her attorneys were given the opportunity to oppose that application or to contest the government’s representations in support of the application. This was all in direct violation of Paragraph 14 of the Protective Order, which provides that the order may be modified by the court only “for good cause shown following notice to all parties and an opportunity to be heard.” Ex. A { 14 (emphasis added). In its ex parte application, the prosecutors professed that they had sought out DOJ-OGR- 00002358