DOJ-OGR-00004738.jpg
720 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court order / legal filing (page 2 of 6)
File Size:
720 KB
Summary
This is page 2 of a court order filed on June 4, 2021, in the case United States v. Maxwell. The court is addressing Ghislaine Maxwell's request to subpoena the entire journal of 'Minor Victim-2.' The court rejects Maxwell's arguments, characterizing the request as a 'fishing expedition' and noting that impeachment material is generally not obtainable via Rule 17(c) subpoena prior to trial. The document also notes that 'BSF' (likely legal counsel for the victim) has stated the unproduced portions of the journal do not mention Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Moving party seeking access to a journal/diary via Rule 17(c) subpoena.
|
| Minor Victim-2 | Witness/Victim |
Author of the journal/diary being sought by the defense.
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Associate |
Mentioned in relation to when Minor Victim-2 first met him; BSF claims the journal does not discuss him.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Court (S.D.N.Y.) |
The court issuing the order/opinion.
|
|
| BSF |
Likely Boies Schiller Flexner (representing victims); represented that the journal does not discuss Maxwell or Epstein.
|
|
| The Government |
Mentioned as having a similar position to BSF regarding the journal.
|
Timeline (1 events)
Unknown
First meeting between Minor Victim-2, Epstein, and Maxwell
Unknown
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Southern District of New York, cited in case law.
|
Relationships (2)
Document discusses the timeline of the victim meeting 'Epstein or Maxwell' and notes the journal allegedly discusses neither.
Maxwell is seeking Minor Victim-2's journal for impeachment purposes.
Key Quotes (4)
"Maxwell appears to proffer two theories of relevance as to the entire journal."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004738.jpg
Quote #1
"At best, the theory amounts to little more than a “fishing expedition,” which is not the proper use of Rule 17(c)."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004738.jpg
Quote #2
"Maxwell does not explain why the absence of references to her in those entries would be relevant"Source
DOJ-OGR-00004738.jpg
Quote #3
"BSF has represented that the rest of the journal does not discuss Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004738.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,137 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 298 Filed 06/04/21 Page 2 of 6
Maxwell appears to proffer two theories of relevance as to the entire journal. While she
studiously avoids using the word, one such theory relates to impeachment. As this Court has
noted, the potential impeachment of a witness does not provide grounds for issuance or
enforcement of a Rule 17(c) subpoena because such materials would only become relevant after
a witness has testified. United States v. Skelos, No. 15-CR-317 (KMW), 2018 WL 2254538, at
*2 (S.D.N.Y. May 17, 2018), aff’d, 988 F.3d 645 (2d Cir. 2021) (collecting cases).
studiously avoids using the word, one such theory relates to impeachment. As this Court has
noted, the potential impeachment of a witness does not provide grounds for issuance or
enforcement of a Rule 17(c) subpoena because such materials would only become relevant after
a witness has testified. United States v. Skelos, No. 15-CR-317 (KMW), 2018 WL 2254538, at
*2 (S.D.N.Y. May 17, 2018), aff’d, 988 F.3d 645 (2d Cir. 2021) (collecting cases).
The other theory of relevance that Maxwell proffers is that if the rest of the journal does
not mention her, the journal as a whole may serve as exculpatory evidence. At best, the theory
amounts to little more than a “fishing expedition,” which is not the proper use of Rule 17(c). See
United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 698–70 (1974). In any event, the argument is too
speculative to meet the standard set forth in Nixon. To begin with, the request appears to be
overbroad; under Rule 17(c), the moving party must show that all of the requested material is
relevant. Cf. United States v. Pena, No. 15-CR-551 (AJN), 2016 WL 8735699, at *2 (S.D.N.Y.
Feb. 12, 2016). It appears from the briefing that the diary includes entries from before Minor
Victim-2’s first time meeting Epstein or Maxwell. Maxwell does not explain why the absence of
references to her in those entries would be relevant, and she provides no other basis as to the
relevance of any portions of the diary that precede her meeting Epstein or Maxwell. And here,
too, the theory that the rest of the journal contradicts Minor Victim-2’s anticipated testimony as
to specific incidents is, in its nature, targeted at impeaching the alleged victim’s anticipated
testimony.
not mention her, the journal as a whole may serve as exculpatory evidence. At best, the theory
amounts to little more than a “fishing expedition,” which is not the proper use of Rule 17(c). See
United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 698–70 (1974). In any event, the argument is too
speculative to meet the standard set forth in Nixon. To begin with, the request appears to be
overbroad; under Rule 17(c), the moving party must show that all of the requested material is
relevant. Cf. United States v. Pena, No. 15-CR-551 (AJN), 2016 WL 8735699, at *2 (S.D.N.Y.
Feb. 12, 2016). It appears from the briefing that the diary includes entries from before Minor
Victim-2’s first time meeting Epstein or Maxwell. Maxwell does not explain why the absence of
references to her in those entries would be relevant, and she provides no other basis as to the
relevance of any portions of the diary that precede her meeting Epstein or Maxwell. And here,
too, the theory that the rest of the journal contradicts Minor Victim-2’s anticipated testimony as
to specific incidents is, in its nature, targeted at impeaching the alleged victim’s anticipated
testimony.
In addition, Maxwell does not plausibly establish the relevance of the rest of the diary
other than the pages she has already received. BSF has represented that the rest of the journal
does not discuss Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein. Dkt. No. 191 at 5. The Government has similarly
other than the pages she has already received. BSF has represented that the rest of the journal
does not discuss Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein. Dkt. No. 191 at 5. The Government has similarly
2
DOJ-OGR-00004738
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document