DOJ-OGR-00019551.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 262 Filed 08/21/20 Page 3 of 5

Honorable Alison J. Nathan
August 21, 2020
Page 3

Government in discovery in this criminal case, and to which the protective order unquestionably applies, to litigate her Civil Cases. There is no basis to modify the Protective Order here.

Second, there is good reason why both parties proposed, and the Court ordered, a protective order that prevents the defendant from using materials obtained through the process of criminal discovery in any of the many civil cases in which she is, or could become, a party. To allow the defendant to do so would permit the dissemination of a vast swath of materials, including those that are confidential due to witness privacy interests, personal identifying information of third parties, and relevance in ongoing grand jury investigations. Here, the Government was particularly concerned about the defendant’s interests in blurring these lines because, among other reasons, her counsel in the criminal case are also her counsel in the Civil Cases. It would be grossly inappropriate for defense counsel to be permitted to sift through the criminal case discovery and cherry-pick materials they may believe could provide some advantage in their efforts to defend against accusations of abuse by victim plaintiffs, delay court-ordered disclosure of previously-sealed materials, or any other legal effort the defendant may be undertaking at any particular time. And yet that is what the defendant proposes.

Third, the specific documents at issue pertain to ex parte applications made as part of an ongoing grand jury investigation. Those documents were filed under seal and presently remain under seal because the relevant judicial officers have ordered that all filings regarding those matters, including the discovery materials referenced in the Defense Letter, remain scaled.³ As the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York has stated publicly, the investigation into the conduct of the defendant in this case and other possible co-conspirators of Jeffrey Epstein remains active. The full scope and details of that investigation, however, have not been made public.⁴ Accordingly, the materials the defendant seeks to file in the Civil Cases were produced under a “Confidential” designation. Any argument that such materials are not “confidential” would not only run contrary to the sealing orders entered by other courts, but also misapprehends the importance of maintaining the confidentiality of criminal investigations.⁵ See,

³ The only exceptions to those sealing orders are (1) as noted above, the permission from Court-1 to provide the April 2019 order alone to the Recipient, and, (2) pursuant to separate permissions the Government has obtained in connection with its discovery obligations, that the entirety of the record relating to the Subpoenas may be provided to the defendant as discovery in this case. The defendant’s claim that the relevant materials were produced to the defendant in discovery without any application to the sealing courts, Def. Ltr. at 7, is incorrect.

⁴ To the extent it would be useful to this Court for the Government to further elaborate on the nature of the ongoing grand jury investigation, the Government is prepared to file a supplemental letter specifically on that subject ex parte and under seal should the Court request such an explanation.

⁵ Moreover, if counsel for the defendant in her Civil Cases believe that certain documents are improperly sealed, there is no impediment to counsel making sealed applications to Court-1 and Court-2, respectively, to unseal the relevant materials. Presumably they have not done so because

App.092
DOJ-OGR-00019551