DOJ-OGR-00002815.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 183 Filed 03/26/21 Page 4 of 7

The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
March 22, 2021
Page 4 of 7

because “the subpoena was not crafted to call for admissible evidence. Rather, it called for the
production of the entire investigative file and is accurately described as a fishing expedition.”).

Similarly, Request 12 asks for “EVCP Material,” which is defined as “any submission to
the Epstein Victim’s Compensation Program made by You, including any claims on behalf of
persons who have accused Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell of any misconduct, any releases
signed by You or Your Clients, and any compensation received by You or Your Clients.” This
Request does not satisfy the Nixon standard—the Defendant is not a party or otherwise privy to
what information BSF has submitted to the confidential Epstein Victim’s Compensation Program
or on behalf of which clients BSF has submitted such information. The Defendant cannot merely
request every piece of confidential information that BSF submitted to the Program in the hopes
that something relevant and admissible turns up. This Request thus cannot pass muster under Rule
17(c).

Second, although BSF does not know what arguments the Defendant made in her ex parte
motion, the documents and items requested in the Subpoena bear no apparent relevance to the
Defendant’s guilt or innocence of the charges in this matter. And to the extent they would be
relevant solely for impeachment purposes, or relevant but inadmissible, the Defendant cannot
obtain them in advance of trial pursuant to Rule 17(c). Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 699–700, 701.

Request 1 seeks communications between BSF and the U.S. Attorney about the Defendant
from 2015 through the present, and Requests 3 through 5 seek communications between BSF and
BSF’s co-counsel from 2015 through the present regarding any meetings with the U.S. Attorney’s
office about the Defendant. But such communications are not relevant to the Government’s
allegations that the Defendant enticed minors to travel, and transported minors, to engage in sex
acts between 1994 to 1997, nearly 20 years prior to any such communications. Nor do such
communications bear any apparent relevance to whether the Defendant perjured herself in a civil
deposition. If such communications are relevant, they are only relevant to the Defendant’s false
narrative that BSF somehow colluded with the Government—an allegation that could serve no
other purpose than impeachment of the Government’s potential witnesses. Request 8—seeking
any grand jury subpoena for documents related to litigation concerning the
Defendant—is similarly aimed at developing some ill-informed narrative of collusion between
BSF and the Government, as the Defendant has on numerous occasions accused BSF of improperly
providing the Government with confidential documents governed by a protective order in a
separate civil matter. See, e.g., ECF No. 134 (Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained
by subpoena to what appears ).² Even if these documents were relevant to anything other

______________________________________________________________________________
2 Requests 3 through 5 also seek protected work product. Those Requests seek
communications between BSF and its co-counsel in several matters relating to Jeffrey Epstein and
Ghislaine Maxwell. Such communications were prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial.
Where a criminal defendant seeks to subpoena work product, the defendant can only overcome the
privilege by demonstrating a “substantial need” for the requested items and that he “cannot,
without undue hardship, obtain their substantial equivalent by other means.” United States v.
Weisberg, No. 08-CR-347 NGG RML, 2011 WL 1327689, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 5, 2011). Given
the marginal potential evidentiary value of the communications, the Defendant will be unable to
demonstrate a substantial need for protected communications between BSF and its co-counsel.

DOJ-OGR-00002815