DOJ-OGR-00004931.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 311-4 Filed 07/02/21 Page 8 of 27 To Be Filed Under Seal by motion to quash or modify the subpoena . . . or to seek permissive intervention in the private action.”) (internal quotations omitted); but see Palmieri v. State of N.Y., 779 F.2d 861, 862 (2d Cir. 1985) (considering appeal where the New York State Attorney General, rather than the subject of the subpoena, was the moving party). During the conference, the Government was not able to explain why it, rather than Boies Schiller, made the application. Boies Schiller is perfectly capable of protecting its own interests. The law firm’s failure to seek for itself permission to respond to the subpoena seems particularly mysterious in light of the fact that it has filed papers on behalf of Giuffre, in both the district and appellate proceedings, supporting the intervenors’ applications to unseal the entire record, See, e.g., Br. for Pl.-Appellee Virginia L. Giuffre, Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 18-2868 (2d Cir. Dec. 27, 2018), ECF No. 83 at 1 (“Ms. Giuffre . . . is now prepared to have the world see what the record contains.”). I suppose that Boies Schiller might not want to seem too cooperative with the Government, especially if it is concerned about ending up as a defendant in a lawsuit alleging breach of contract if it has failed to return or destroy the Confidential Materials in its possession. See Aioi Nissay Dowa Ins. Co. v. ProSight Specialty Mgmt. Co., No. 12-cv-3274, 2012 WL 3583176, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2012). But that does not strike this Court as a reason for the Government to carry the firm’s water—the moreso because Judge Sweet ruled some months before he died that the intervenors’ appeals in Giuffre meant the lawsuit had not “concluded,” and so had postponed the day when that contractual obligation kicked in. (15-cv-7433, Dkt. No. 967 at 6.)3 a This ruling came in response to a motion by Maxwell to compel Giuffre’s compliance with the document destruction provision. It argued that Giuffre’s obligations thereunder were triggered at the time of settlement. (15- cv-7433, Dkt. Nos, 957.) Judge Sweet denied that motion in light of the pending appeals. (15-cv-7433, Dkt. No. 967). SDNY_GM_00000881 DOJ-OGR- 00004931