DOJ-OGR-00003755.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 209 Filed 04/16/21 Page3of5 allegations in the indictment continues to prejudice Ms. Maxwell’s ability to investigate and defend this matter. It is fundamentally unfair for the government to withhold basic information while at the same time making representations about that information to the Court when convenient. This type of selective disclosure by one party in litigation is disfavored. See, e.g., United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, (1975); United States v. Bilzerian, 926 F.2d 1285 (2d Cir. 1991); In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 219 F.3d 175, 182—84 (2d Cir.2000); Granite Partners, L.P. v. Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc., 184 F.R.D. 49, 54 (S.D.N.Y. 1999); Worthington v. Endee, 177 F.R.D. 113, 116-17 (N.D.N.Y. 1998); Peck v. United States, 514 F. Supp. 210, 213 (S.D.N.Y.), on reargument, 522 F. Supp. 245 (S.D.N.Y. 1981); State of N. D. ex rel. Olson v. Andrus, 581 F.2d 177, 182 (8th Cir. 1978) (selective disclosure exhibited by the government in this action is “intolerable as a matter of policy”). It would be inefficient and a waste of judicial resources to continue to litigate this issue piecemeal. Moreover, until Ms. Maxwell has complete relevant information, she cannot precisely identify the many witnesses and documents that are unavailable to her as a result of the pretrial delay. CONCLUSION Accordingly, Ms. Maxwell requests that the Court defer consideration of her Motion to Dismiss Counts One Through Six of the Superseding Indictment for Pre-Indictment Delay until after the government has produced all of the discovery in this matter, including, but not limited to any alleged F.R.E. 404(b) information, all witness statements, and all Brady and Giglio material. Dated: March 15, 2021 DOJ-OGR-00003755