DOJ-OGR-00003785.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document212 Filed 04/16/21 Page11 of 20 Second, the government’s inevitable discovery doctrine is far too speculative. The “typical application” of the inevitable discovery doctrine is when “the government seeks to invoke the doctrine on the basis of standardized, established procedures such as those requiring inventory searches.” Stokes, 733 F.3d at 447. The government’s “inevitability analysis in this case,” however, “is predicated on an assessment of the actions that might have been taken by third parties,” such as Judge Preska and the Miami Herald, who are “not acting at the behest of the police.” /d. “Such an analysis is inherently speculative.” Jd. In fact, unlike every other civil case in the Southern District of New York against Maxwell or Epstein’s estate, the government deliberately chose not to intervene in the on-going unsealing process in Giuffre v. Maxwell. In the only other active SDNY case against Epstein, Doe v. Indyke, No. 20-cv-484-JLK, the government intervened and moved to stay discovery, saying that continued discovery could threaten its case against Maxwell. By contrast, the government opted not to intervene and stay the unsealing in Giuffre v. Maxwell. The reason is obvious. Legitimately concerned about the propriety of its conduct in misleading Chief Judge McMahon and issuing an unconstitutionally overbroad subpoena to Boies Schiller, the government hoped to hedge its bets by allowing the unsealing process to unfold so it could make the inevitable discovery argument it now makes. This Court should not condone such gamesmanship.! Third, the government’s inevitable discovery argument is far too broad. Even the government admits that the vast majority of material it obtained from Boies Schiller is not on the Giuffre v. Maxwell docket and has not been unsealed by Judge Preska. Resp. at 94. In fact, the government’s response appears to concede that its inevitable discovery argument is limited to ' As the government recognizes, Judge Preska recognized this possibility, but deferred to this Court on the question since it is presiding over the criminal case. Resp. at 94 n.41. DOJ-OGR-00003785