DOJ-OGR-00001706.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 38 Filed 08/10/20 Page 2 of 6

The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
August 10, 2020
Page 2

that we can mount an effective defense investigation and adequately prepare for trial. This is
especially true in this case where the alleged misconduct took place on unspecified dates roughly
25 years ago in multiple locations—namely, New York, Florida, New Mexico, and the United
Kingdom—and where the central figure, Jeffrey Epstein, is alleged to have engaged in
misconduct with dozens, if not hundreds, of alleged victims. The defense should not have to
speculate which of these individuals are Victims 1-3 referenced in the indictment.

It is now almost six weeks since Ms. Maxwell’s arrest, and the government is just now
beginning to produce Rule 16 discovery, despite confirming to the Court that discovery would
begin as soon as the Court entered a protective order. Moreover, the government still has not
confirmed to the defense the identities of Victims 1-3. Ms. Maxwell was arrested on July 2,
2020. On July 14, 2020, during her arraignment and bail hearing, the government indicated that
it had “begun preparing an initial production” and would be “prepared to produce a first batch of
discovery as soon as a protective order [was] entered by the Court.”¹ The Court entered the
protective order on July 30, 2020. (Dkt. 36). The following day, July 31, 2020, defense counsel
contacted the government and requested disclosure of the identities of Victims 1-3. The
government refused to do so, stating that it would only disclose the identities of alleged victims
through its production of Rule 16 discovery, or as part of its production of Jencks Act material
closer to trial. That same day, per the government’s request, the defense provided a hard drive to
load the Rule 16 discovery. However, the government did not make its first production until
after 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, August 5, 2020.

The government’s initial production was a subset of non-electronic discovery materials,
totaling nearly 13,000 pages, which the defense expeditiously reviewed for high-level content.
Upon initial review, the materials contain certain records related to one specific individual.
However, nothing in the production specifically identifies this individual as Victim 1, 2, or 3.
The defense should not be required to speculate whether this individual is one of the three
alleged Victims, and if so, which one. Moreover, the initial production does not appear to
contain any materials identifying the other two alleged Victims. Although the government has
indicated that it will provide additional discovery on a rolling basis, if the initial production is
any guide, it seems unlikely that later productions will sufficiently identify the remaining alleged
Victims. Furthermore, the defense should not be forced to wait almost two additional weeks
until August 21, 2020 (the deadline for the production of initial non-electronic discovery) or
potentially months until November 9, 2020 (deadline for the completion of all discovery) before
learning information that is vital to the defense. Ms. Maxwell’s right to a fair trial depends on
the defense’s ability to adequately investigate the charges against her, and that investigation will
be significantly impaired until we know for certain the names of Victims 1-3.

__________________________________________________________________
¹ July 14, 2020 Tr. at 12:14-17; see also id. at 12:25-13:3 (“Following the entry of [the] protective order . . . the
government is prepared to make a substantial production of discovery.”).

DOJ-OGR-00001706