DOJ-OGR-00002883.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 191 Filed 03/30/21 Page 7 of 7

The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
March 22, 2021
Page 7 of 7

Material,” which is clearly sought for impeachment purposes, is not a proper subject of a Rule 17(c) subpoena.

Third, certain of the documents that the Defendant seeks to obtain from BSF are “otherwise procurable” from the Government. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 699 (documents requested pursuant to Rule 17(c) must not be “otherwise procurable” from another source). Requests 1 and 2 both seek communications between BSF and the U.S. Attorney, which the Defendant can procure from the Government. Similarly, Request 8 seeks a Grand Jury Subpoena that was served on BSF by the Government itself, and that the Defendant can therefore procure from the Government. Thus, a Rule 17(c) subpoena to BSF for these documents is improper. See, e.g., United States v. Bergstein, No. 16 Cr. 746 (PKC), 2017 WL 6887596, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2017) (“When ‘many’ of the subpoenaed materials are obtainable through the discovery process, a subpoena contravenes Nixon’s requirement that subpoenaed materials must not be otherwise procurable in advance of trial by the exercise of due diligence.”); United States v. Boyle, No. 08 Cr. 523 (CM), 2009 WL 484436, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2009) (quashing a 17(c) subpoena where it was “likely that many of the documents that defendant seeks in his subpoena are obtainable from another source—the United States Attorney’s Office—with little or no diligence required”).

Finally, Requests 10 and 11 seek items that can be produced at trial if they are shown to be relevant and admissible. Request 10 seeks a pair of cowboy boots that the Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein purchased for Annie Farmer for inspection and copying. Request 11 seeks the original copies of various photographs of Annie Farmer when she was a teenager, of Maria Farmer on Leslie Wexner’s property, of Virginia Giuffre on various of Jeffrey Epstein and the Defendant’s properties, and of Virginia Giuffre, Prince Andrew, and the Defendant in the Defendant’s London townhome. Although the relevance of these items is minimal—the photographs, for example, do not appear to depict any conduct or event described in the indictment—the Defendant cannot show that she “cannot properly prepare for trial without such production and inspection in advance of trial and that the failure to obtain such inspection may tend unreasonably to delay the trial,” which is an independent requirement under Nixon, 418 U.S. at 699. There is simply no reason why, if the Farmers and Ms. Giuffre ultimately testify and if these items prove to be relevant and admissible, these items cannot be produced for inspection at trial.

For all of the foregoing reasons, the Defendant’s motion to authorize service of the Subpoena on BSF should be denied

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Sigrid S. McCawley
Sigrid S. McCawley

DOJ-OGR-00002883