DOJ-OGR-00003975.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 244 _ Filed 04/23/21 Page4of14 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan April 2, 2021 Page 4 communications” between “the law enforcement entity, Virginia Giuffre, David Boies, Stan Pottinger, Sigrid McCawley, Paul Cassell, [and] Brad Edwards.” Curiously, although the government purportedly subpoenaed all of the BSF files relating to Giuffre v. Maxwell,’ the production from the government to Ms. Maxwell does not contain these 57 documents reflecting communications between these lawyers and a “law enforcement entity.” Only after Ms. Maxwell filed her pre-trial motions did the government produce a few of its communications with BSF and their co-counsel from 2016. The peculiar failure of the government to produce these items in connection with the “entire” BSF file has yet to be explained. Clearly, BSF knew what the terms meant when it used them to block the production of this information in the civil litigation and it should not be allowed to profess confusion or ignorance here. The cases cited by BSF are not helpful to its cause. For example, the court in United States v. Avenatti, No. (S1) 19 CR. 373 (PGG), 2020 WL 86768, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2020), quashed the subpoena because it did “not satisfy the initial requirement of relevance.” In United States v. Mendinueta-Ibarro, 956 F. Supp. 2d 511, 512 (S.D.N.Y. 2013), the defendant requested “any and all writings and records” related to the NYPD's contact with a particular confidential witness who, according to the defendant, provided relevant information. The subpoena was unlimited in time or scope and, to the extent a time or scope were determined, production of the information was limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3500. Jd. at 513. United States v. Barnes, No. S9 04 CR 186 SCR, 2008 WL 9359654, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2008), involved a subpoena served by the Defendant on the Metropolitan Detention 2 Judge McMahon described the subpoena as a “general subpoena...I mean, everything that’s in Boies Schiller’s files, other than privileged documents, which of course you don’t exclude from your subpoena.” DOJ-OGR-00003975