DOJ-OGR-00002897.jpg
795 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing / legal memorandum
File Size:
795 KB
Summary
This is page 8 of a court filing (Document 195) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (US v. Maxwell), filed on April 5, 2021. The Government argues against the defendant's attempt to issue a subpoena to 'BSF' (Boies Schiller Flexner), characterizing it as an improper 'fishing expedition' for victim information and impeachment material that violates the 'Nixon test.' The Government also notes that the defendant failed to file a required response by the April 2, 2021 deadline.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
Subject of the criminal case (Ghislaine Maxwell, based on case number context), seeking subpoenas.
|
| The Government | Prosecution |
Opposing the defendant's subpoena requests.
|
| The Court | Judiciary |
The judge or judicial body overseeing the case.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| BSF |
Law firm (Boies Schiller Flexner), recipient of a subpoena from the defendant.
|
|
| Government |
Department of Justice / US Attorney's Office.
|
|
| S.D.N.Y. |
Southern District of New York (cited in case law).
|
Timeline (2 events)
2021-04-02
Deadline for defendant's response filing (which was missed or not docketed)
Court
Defendant
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Southern District of New York (jurisdiction mentioned in citation).
|
Relationships (2)
Defendant issued a subpoena to BSF.
Government opposing Defendant's subpoena requests and ex parte procedures.
Key Quotes (4)
"the defendant has already sought issuance of a subpoena that appears to directly implicate the Government’s interests by expressly and improperly seeking broad categories of victim information and communications with the Government."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002897.jpg
Quote #1
"the subpoena constitutes a fishing expedition for potential impeachment material, which plainly runs afoul of the Nixon test."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002897.jpg
Quote #2
"The Government recognizes that some information... may reveal critical defense strategy meriting ex parte consideration by the Court."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002897.jpg
Quote #3
"The Government has also not seen any response filing by the defendant... it was neither docketed nor provided to the Government"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002897.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,479 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 195 Filed 04/05/21 Page 8 of 11
Page 8
Page 8
Moreover, as the information currently available to the Government about the BSF
subpoena makes plain, the Government’s concerns are well founded. Indeed, the defendant has
already sought issuance of a subpoena that appears to directly implicate the Government’s interests
by expressly and improperly seeking broad categories of victim information and communications
with the Government. While the Government has not seen the subpoena to BSF, it also appears
that the subpoena constitutes a fishing expedition for potential impeachment material, which
plainly runs afoul of the Nixon test. (Letter from BSF to the Court at 2, Dkt. No. 191).⁵ Insofar
as the defendant is attempting to engage in such an improper expedition in this case—or even if
the defendant is merely pushing the limits of a Rule 17 subpoena—the Government respectfully
submits that it should be afforded the opportunity to bring its concerns to the Court’s attention.
subpoena makes plain, the Government’s concerns are well founded. Indeed, the defendant has
already sought issuance of a subpoena that appears to directly implicate the Government’s interests
by expressly and improperly seeking broad categories of victim information and communications
with the Government. While the Government has not seen the subpoena to BSF, it also appears
that the subpoena constitutes a fishing expedition for potential impeachment material, which
plainly runs afoul of the Nixon test. (Letter from BSF to the Court at 2, Dkt. No. 191).⁵ Insofar
as the defendant is attempting to engage in such an improper expedition in this case—or even if
the defendant is merely pushing the limits of a Rule 17 subpoena—the Government respectfully
submits that it should be afforded the opportunity to bring its concerns to the Court’s attention.
The Government recognizes that some information, such as portions of a defendant’s
explanation for why a particular request in a particular subpoena meets the Nixon standard, may
reveal critical defense strategy meriting ex parte consideration by the Court. But the Government
respectfully submits that interest can be served through specific defense requests tailored to the
particular redaction or application at issue, rather than a default whereby the defendant is permitted
to proceed entirely ex parte in seeking documents and materials pursuant to Rule 17(c).
explanation for why a particular request in a particular subpoena meets the Nixon standard, may
reveal critical defense strategy meriting ex parte consideration by the Court. But the Government
respectfully submits that interest can be served through specific defense requests tailored to the
particular redaction or application at issue, rather than a default whereby the defendant is permitted
to proceed entirely ex parte in seeking documents and materials pursuant to Rule 17(c).
______________________________________________________________________________
(emphasis added); see United States v. Reyes, 162 F.R.D. 468, 470 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (“Rules 17(a)
and 17(b), which govern the issuance of subpoenas returnable at trial, also do not provide guidance
as to the proper procedure for obtaining a pretrial subpoena duces tecum.”). These procedures are,
at a bare minimum, in tension with proceeding ex parte or under the rules that govern subpoenas
for trial testimony.
⁵ The Government has also not seen any response filing by the defendant, which per the Court’s
March 24, 2021 Order was to be filed on or before April 2, 2021. To the extent the defendant did
file such a response, it was neither docketed nor provided to the Government, and as such, the
Government is unable to address herein any arguments made by the defendant about the BSF
subpoena.
(emphasis added); see United States v. Reyes, 162 F.R.D. 468, 470 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (“Rules 17(a)
and 17(b), which govern the issuance of subpoenas returnable at trial, also do not provide guidance
as to the proper procedure for obtaining a pretrial subpoena duces tecum.”). These procedures are,
at a bare minimum, in tension with proceeding ex parte or under the rules that govern subpoenas
for trial testimony.
⁵ The Government has also not seen any response filing by the defendant, which per the Court’s
March 24, 2021 Order was to be filed on or before April 2, 2021. To the extent the defendant did
file such a response, it was neither docketed nor provided to the Government, and as such, the
Government is unable to address herein any arguments made by the defendant about the BSF
subpoena.
DOJ-OGR-00002897
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document