DOJ-OGR-00004148.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 285 Filed 05/20/21 Page 13 of 34 for defamation for denying she had trafficked and abused Giuffre—were focused only on Epstein and not on Maxwell. Despite AUSA JJ contemporancous notes showing that the meeting very much concerned Maxwell, the government now claims that “the pitch was to investigate Epstein, not Maxwell,” and that the discussion included only “passing references to Maxwell.” Resp. at 89 n.39, The government bases this argument exc/usively on a phone call prosecutors conducted with AUSA gg On February 11, 2021, five years after the February 29 meeting actually took place. Ex. K. This Court should reject the government’s revisionist history. The best evidence of what happened on February 29, 2016—at least the best evidence the government has produced so far—is AUSA J contemporaneous notes.® Ex. J.; Abdell v. City of New York, No. 05 CIV. 8453 KMK JCF, 2006 WL 2664313, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2006) (denying motion to quash third-party subpoena because “contemporaneous statements of witnesses constitute best evidence”). Although the government attached these notes to its Response, Resp. Ex. 5, the government does not rely on them as part of its argument, choosing instead to rely on AUSA J 2021 recollection of what happened, Resp. at 62-66, 89 & n.39, 92 (citing Ex. 4). * It appears the government does not actually want to know anything beyond what AUSA yy remembers (or doesn’t remember) of 2016. All the government did in response to Maxwell’s Motion was telephone AUSA J The government apparently: (1) did not search its system for any and all emails from, to, or about David Boies, Sigrid McCawley, Stan Pottinger, Brad Edwards, or Peter Skinner; and (2) did not interview anyone other than AUSA ggg, such as the other attendees of the meeting (Pottinger, Edwards, and Skinner), or any of the other AUSAs whom AUSA ggg talked to about her contacts with Giuffre’s attorneys. Most conspicuous, of course, is the government’s failure to interview AUSA J or secure an affidavit from him. If this Court does not grant Maxwell’s Motion on the papers, only an evidentiary hearing can address these issues. DOJ-OGR-00004148