DOJ-OGR-00003037.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 103 of 239

committed perjury.” According to two anonymous sources, “a second meeting occurred.” However, the Article cites another anonymous source as “insist[ing] [a second meeting] never happened.”

B. The Defendant’s Suppression Motion Should Be Denied

Maxwell seeks suppression of the evidence the Government obtained via a judicially authorized subpoena to Boies Schiller under Martindell, the Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, the Due Process clause, and the Court’s inherent authority. However, Maxwell’s motion turns on erroneous facts, runs afoul of controlling law, and should be denied.

1. Martindell Provides No Basis to Grant the Relief the Defendant Seeks

Maxwell argues that the Government “circumvented” the Second Circuit’s decision in Martindell and “violated Maxwell’s rights,” which requires suppression of the evidence the Government obtained from the subpoena. (Def. Mot. 11 at 11-12). Even assuming that to be true—which, of course, as detailed above and herein, it is not—there is no basis in law to suppress evidence as a result of a Martindell violation, and Maxwell cites none in support of her claim. Setting that fatal flaw aside, however, her claim is wrong on both the facts and the law. The Government issued a valid grand jury subpoena for the materials, applied for judicial authorization to modify the protective order to permit compliance with the subpoena, and a district court judge, who evaluated the Government’s application under Martindell, properly exercised her discretion in modifying the protective order. Only after receiving that court order did the Government obtain any protected materials from Boies Schiller. Maxwell’s motion should be denied.

a. Applicable Law

“[T]here is no question that a Rule 26(c) protective order is subject to modification,” and a decision to modify such an order is “committed to the sound discretion of the trial court.” In re

76

DOJ-OGR-00003037