DOJ-OGR-00001809.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 66 Filed 10/23/20 Page 5 of 7

The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
October 23, 2020
Page 5

came from another state, agents, or lawyers. In addition, the Government has disclosed the existence, for example, of additional files and investigations including 28 boxes of material from the United States Attorney’s Florida office, the Department of Justice, and the United States Attorney’s Georgia office.

It is unclear precisely what the Government will do with this material. On the one hand the Government suggests it “intends’ to review the files for “materials that warrant disclosure in this case.” On the other hand, the Government’s letter includes a lengthy disclaimer about why the Government believes it has no obligation to locate, obtain, or produce the discovery. The authority cited by the Government in support of its disclaimer is easily distinguishable. This case does not involve material gathered independently by the SEC, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, or the New York Stock Exchange. See United States v. Collins, 409 F. Supp. 3d 228, 241-43 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (“SEC”); United States v. Middendorf, No. 18 Cr. 36 (JPO), 2018 WL 3956494, at *4-5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2018) (“PCAOB”); United States v. Finnerty, 411 F. Supp. 2d 428, 433 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (“NYSE”).

The Government does not ask the Court to rule on its view of itself and clearly this argument will be held on another day. It is troubling, however, that instead of simply providing the information to Ms. Maxwell the Government goes to great effort to preview why it may not. Ms. Maxwell submits that all this material is discoverable for the reasons already discussed.

The Method and Timing of the Government’s Revised Discovery Plan is Inadequate and Prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell.

Ms. Maxwell agreed, in advance of her detention hearing, to a trial more than one year from her detention. She agreed to this plan on the representation that she would be provided with full discovery no later than November 9, 2020. See ECF #25, “Completion of Discovery to include electronic materials is due by Monday, November 9, 2020.” This representation now seems incorrect. The Government, in its letter to the Court, is simply fronting the reasons why the completion of discovery will likely not occur by November 9, 2020.

Ms. Maxwell, when agreeing to a trial in July 2021, outside the time limits established by 18 U.S.C. § 3161, thought that she would be provided with meaningful discovery with sufficient time to prepare. This assumption also seems incorrect. In its letter to the Court the Government proposes that witness statements be provided a mere four weeks prior to trial, for the important witnesses, and eight weeks for the unimportant witnesses. This is a case with 26-year-old claims, allegedly occurring in multiple states and countries. It is a certainty that material witnesses live in other countries, and that these witnesses cannot be compelled to appear in New York. Securing out-of-country testimony is difficult even where a defendant has been provided with the names of her accusers and details about the allegations. The parties have not yet met and conferred about the timing of disclosure of witness statements, so it is premature to discuss these issues with the Court. We note, however, that under the Government’s proposed timetable, it will be impossible for Ms. Maxwell to adequately prepare for trial.

The Government’s suggested timeline also impairs Ms. Maxwell’s ability to effectively address significant legal issues including motions to suppress evidence, motions to dismiss the

DOJ-OGR-00001809