DOJ-OGR-00003979.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 244 _ Filed 04/23/21 Page8of14 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan April 2, 2021 Page 8 Regardless, the government has failed to produce, or even look for these communications and Ms. Maxwell has no other means to obtain them. Requests 6 and 7 Requests 6 and 7 request the engagement agreements between BSF and alleged victim 2 and her sister. BSF has previously claimed that it represented these individuals. Farmer v. Indyke, No. 19-cv-10475 (LGS-DCF); Farmer v. Indyke, 19-cv-10474-NRP. The scope and dates of these engagements are relevant to Ms. Maxwell’s pending motions and are relevant and admissible for many of the reasons articulated with respect to Requests 1-5. Moreover, these agreements are exculpatory evidence that, as discussed below in connection with Request 12, are procurable in advance of trial. Request 8 Request 8 seeks the grand jury subpoena the government served on BSF. This is hardly a controversial, sensitive or speculative item. It is however relevant to Ms. Maxwell’s pending motions to suppress because it is the document reviewed by Judge McMahon commanding production of the entire BSF file including confidential materials subject to a strict protective order in Giuffre. The subpoena is admissible either as part of the written motion practice or in a hearing on the motions to suppress. Indeed, the Court could take judicial notice of the document which is in the SDNY court files. Ms. Maxwell would then be the only party to the motion practice that was in the dark about the content of the subpoena. What the subpoena commands, when it was served, and who accepted service are all relevant to the issues before the Court. BSF’s only retort is that Ms. Maxwell should get the subpoena from the government. Ms. Maxwell asked the government for the subpoena and the government refused this request. She has no other recourse but to ask this Court for assistance. DOJ-OGR-00003979