DOJ-OGR-00004154.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 285 _ Filed 05/20/21 Page 19 of 34 For one thing, the government admits that Giuffre’s attorneys turned over several documents in 2016, which were in the government’s possession when AUSA J claimed to Judge McMahon that he did not know what was in Boies Schiller’s file. Moreover, by the time AUSA [RE told Judge McMahon that, for all he knew, the deposition transcripts would show “page after page of people taking the Fifth,” it was already a matter of public record that Maxwell had been deposed and that she had not invoked the Fifth Amendment. Ex. Q, p 1. The government’s argument also defies logic. The government was asking Judge McMahon to authorize a subpoena of Boies Schiller’s entire file. At a minimum, the government had to have asked Boies Schiller about the size of the file and issues related to privilege to determine if Boies Schiller would contest the subpoena or notify either the civil court or Maxwell when the subpoena was issued and responsive documents produced. In fact, the government issued two subpoenas to Boies Schiller: the first for material covered by the Protective Order, and the second for material outside the Protective Order’s reach. Clearly, the government knew more about Boies Schiller’s file than AUSA J Ict on. e Defense 6: The “subject of your investigation” to whom Judge McMahon referred was Jeffrey Epstein. According to the government, when Judge McMahon asked AUSA gg “about contacts between the United States Attorney’s Office and the Boies Schiller firm prior to the issuance of the subpoena on the subject of your investigation,” Mot. Ex. E, p 2, Judge McMahon was referring only to Epstein. Resp. at 71. This is not a plausible reading of the transcript. After his first appearance before her, Judge McMahon haled AUSA J back to court for one reason. “I'll be very up-front with you,” she said. Mot. Ex. E, p 2. 14 DOJ-OGR-00004154