DOJ-OGR-00008371.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document544 Filed 12/14/21 Page8of9 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan December 13, 2021 Page 8 government. Jane’s statement is not privileged because it was not “intended to be .. . kept confidential.” See Erie, 473 F.3d at 419. And any privilege that may have existed was waived when Mr. Glassman shared Jane’s statement with the government. See Fed. R. Evid. 502(a); Steinhardt Partners, 9 F.3d at 236; 1 McCormick on Evid., § 93. There is a third category of relevant communications. During cross-examination, Jane denied knowing that after the EVCP made its $5 million offer to settle, Mr. Glassman went back to the EVCP on her behalf to seek more money. TR at 558:8-17. In fact, Mr. Glassman did exactly that. He originally demanded $25 million for Jane from Ms. Maxwell. Jane then filed a claim with the EVCP, which offered $5 million. Mr. Glassman replied to the EVCP that Jane “‘is a sophisticated claimant who knows the value of her claim is worth a lot more than $5 million.” Mr. Glassman then demanded a settlement in the eight figures. Because Mr. Glassman communicated these demands to a third party, the first demand to Ms. Maxwell’s counsel and the second to the EVCP, and because these communications were not between Mr. Glassman and his client, the exchanges are not protected by the attorney-client privilege and, even if they were, any privilege was waived. Finally, there can be no argument that AUSA Rossmiller’s statements to Mr. Glassman, and Mr. Glassman’s statements in response, which do not repeat or refer to statements by Jane, are not privileged. The exchanges between AUSA Rossmiller and Mr. Glassman are not “communication[s] between client and counsel.” See Erie, 473 F.3d at 419. tk OK Ok Ms. Maxwell has a constitutional right to compulsory process and to present a defense. U.S. Const. amends. V, VI. Because the attorney-client privilege does not preclude her from DOJ-OGR-00008371