DOJ-OGR-00004001.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 247 Filed 04/23/21 Page1of17 BOIES SCHILLER Ces LEXNER Sigrid S. McCawley Telephone: (954) 377-4223 Email: smecawley@bsfllp.com April 5, 2021 VIA EMAIL (FILED UNDER TEMPORARY SEAL The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Rule 17 Subpoena to Boies Schiller Flexner LLP Dear Judge Nathan: I write on behalf of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP (“BSF”) in further support of its objections to Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell’s motion for an order authorizing a subpoena to BSF pursuant to Rule 17(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (the “Subpoena”).! As the Defendant’s response makes clear, she seeks to serve a Rule 17 subpoena on BSF because she is dissatisfied with the Government’s discovery efforts thus far. Thus, she is using Rule 17 to attempt to obtain discovery that she has been unable to obtain from the Government under Rule 16 and Brady, including discovery that is subject to a pending motion before the Court. This is an improper use of a Rule 17 subpoena. If the Defendant believes that the Government has not fulfilled its discovery obligations under Rule 16, Brady, or Giglio, she must address that issue with the Government and the Court rather than serving overbroad and burdensome subpoenas on third parties. And if the Defendant is not entitled to the discovery she seeks from the Government, then : The Defendant refers to BSF’s objections as a “motion to quash,” but the Court has not yet granted Defendant’s motion to authorize the Subpoena to BSF. BSF thus requests that the Defendant’s motion to authorize the Subpoena be denied. BOIES SCHILLER! FLEXNER: LLP 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 | (t) 954 356 0011 | (f) 8954 356 0022 | www.bsfilp.com DOJ-OGR-00004001