DOJ-OGR-00003854.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 218 Filed 04/19/21 Page2of8 The Hon. Alison J. Nathan April 15, 2021 Page 2 with Ms. Giuffre’s lawyers to obtain information subject to strict protective orders in the civil cases. To carry out this plan, the government sought ex parte subpoenas from two judicial officers—Chief Judge McMahon and Magistrate Judge Netburn—for Boies Schiller Flexner’s files in the civil cases. Magistrate Judge Netburn rejected the scheme. Judge McMahon proceeded with caution, concerned about possible collusion between the government and the civil attorneys. She haled an Assisted United States Attorney into court and asked him a simple and direct question: What contacts had there been between the government and the plaintiffs’ lawyers? The honest answer to the question would have disclosed at least one lengthy meeting and numerous follow up communications between the government and the lawyers, a disclosure that would have led Judge McMahon to deny the ex parte subpoena request. But the government did not give an honest answer. The government instead denied any contacts or communication between the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the plaintiffs’ lawyers. Reassured by the misrepresentation that there was no coordination between the government and counsel, Judge McMahon authorized the ex parte subpoena, which resulted in the illegal circumvention of a valid protective order. Ms. Maxwell’s due process motion to suppress and the reply in support thereof set forth the relevant factual background. An evidentiary hearing on the motion will shed even further light, given the incredible nature of the government’s denials. Indeed, in response to Ms. Maxwell’s motions to exclude evidence obtained in violation of the protective order, the government made minimal inquiries about the scope of its misrepresentations to Judge McMahon. The government endeavored to minimize the damage, not find out the truth. Professed lack of memory was not probed, global email DOJ-OGR-00003854