DOJ-OGR-00003018.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 84 of 239

process, the inference that the defendant urges this Court to draw—that the Government delayed seeking an indictment to gain a tactical advantage and did so through strategy in the pending civil litigation—is both unsupported by the record and illogical.
The defendant makes much of the Government having moved to intervene and stay the proceedings in Doe v. Indyke, No. 20 Civ. 484 (JGK), while the Government has not moved to stay Giuffre v. Maxwell. (Def. Mot. 7 at 16-19). She suggests that there is some “sharp contrast” between the Government’s actions in the various civil matters, which “establish a strong inference that as long as the government stood to gain a tactical advantage by delaying the indictment . . ., it would not move to intervene.” (Id. at 19). Setting the defendant’s conspiracy theories aside, the civil matters were in completely different procedural postures, which implicate different concerns regarding a pending criminal case. The Giuffre v. Maxwell litigation was settled and complete well before the Government even opened its investigation in this case. By contrast, the Doe v. Indyke case was initiated after the Government opened its investigation and remained ongoing after the Indictment in this case was filed.23 The defendant quotes the Government’s letter to Judge Freeman requesting permission to intervene and stay Doe v. Indyke (see id.), but omits the portion of that letter in which the Government explained that, as far as it was aware, Doe v. Indyke was the “lone case in this District that has not yet been either resolved or stayed at this point. . . . In

23 In particular, Giuffre v. Maxwell was resolved in 2017 and the determination of what material should remain sealed remains the only open issue. Accordingly, there is no more discovery to be conducted in the Giuffre case and no possible concern to the Government that, for example, its trial witnesses in the criminal case might be deposed in that civil case. In Doe v. Indyke, on the other hand, discovery was just beginning, and if discovery were to have proceeded, multiple witnesses or potential witnesses at the criminal trial would likely have been subject to deposition. That concern, among others, raised a significant risk that proceeding with the civil matter would adversely affect the ongoing criminal prosecution against the defendant. Moreover, the interests of judicial economy and the public interest in enforcement of the criminal law were served by a stay in the Doe case because the outcome of the criminal case could resolve disputed issues in the Doe case. Such concerns are not present in Giuffre v. Maxwell.

57

DOJ-OGR-00003018