DOJ-OGR-00004739.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 298 Filed 06/04/21 Page 3 of 6

represented that it understands that Minor Victim-2 stopped writing in the diary shortly after
meeting Jeffrey Epstein and that the diary, as a result, has no entries relating to any later trips she
took with Epstein. Dkt. No. 204 at 187. Maxwell does not provide any nonconclusory basis to
doubt these representations. So while it is undisputed that Maxwell is not referenced in the
diary—BSF, the Government, and Maxwell all agree on this point—the absence of references
alone, without regard to whether the diary contains entries relevant to the incidents about which
Minor Victim-2 is expected to testify at trial, does not establish any relevance except as to
potential impeachment.

Nor do any of Maxwell’s additional arguments establish the relevance of the rest of the
journal. She points to the fairness doctrine and Rules 106 and Rule 612 of the Federal Rules of
Evidence as providing additional bases for the propriety of the request under Rule 17(c). She
cites cases regarding the fairness doctrine in the context of attorney-client privilege that have no
application to the issue presently before the Court. Furthermore, to the extent she makes an
argument under Rule 106 or Rule 612, the argument is premature. Even assuming that Rule 106
and Rule 612 could provide grounds for admissibility and relevance at trial, that would only
ripen at trial if portions of the journal are introduced and admitted. Her Rule 612 argument is
further strained by the fact that, even if that rule applied, it would not entitle the Defendant to
production of the entire journal. The Rule provides that “[i]f the producing party claims that the
writing includes unrelated matter, the court must examine the writing in camera, delete any
unrelated portion, and order that the rest be delivered to the adverse party.” Fed. R. Evid.
612(b). Here, both the Government and BSF, on behalf of Minor Victim-2, have asserted that
the rest of the journal is unrelated. In any event, none of these principles establish the relevance
of the journal beyond impeachment, and all of the arguments presented to the contrary are

3

DOJ-OGR-00004739