DOJ-OGR-00007399.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 487 Filed 11/22/21 Page7of8 Page 7 operations of the EVCP. (Def. Mot. at 5 (“Lawyers for Accuser-2 and Witness-3 were instrumental in creating and structuring the terms of the Protocol.”)). The risk of confusing the issues and wasting time at trial substantially outweigh any probative value in the evidence the defendant might obtain. This is not a trial about the scope and adjudicative process of the EVCP. All of this should be precluded, and therefore none of it is admissible under Nixon. The defendant is able to make arguments about bias and consistency without issuing a subpoena that is unlikely to yield relevant information—information that would be precluded at trial in any event.® D. Communications Finally, the subpoena calls for communications between EVCP and the Minor Victims and their counsel. The term “communications” is defined broadly, covering “all forms of correspondence, including regular mail, email, text messages, memorandum, or other written communication of information of any kind.” This subpoena request is a classic fishing expedition that the Court should quash. There is no reason to believe that the Minor Victim or their counsel would make substantive statements, which might be inconsistent, in emails and text messages. The defendant offers no reason why their theory of bias would find support in correspondence. Nor is one supported by logic: the theory is that the Minor Victims told false stories to the Government to advance the prosecution, not that they did or said biased things to the EVCP. This subpoena does not seek to “obtain identified evidence” but rather to engage in “a general ‘fishing expedition’ that attempts to use the ® The defendant defines “EVCP Material” to include information regarding compensation received by Minor Victims and releases signed by them. (Def. Mot. Ex. 1 Attachment A). Those items should be treated identically to the specific requests for them, as discussed above. DOJ-OGR-00007399