Event Details

This document is Page 4 of a legal filing (Document 195) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on April 5, 2021. The text argues that defense subpoenas asking for 'any and all' records are improper discovery requests and asserts that the Court should require the Defendant to notify the Government of any Rule 17(c) subpoena applications. It cites concerns regarding the harassment of witnesses and the protection of victim confidentiality.

This document is page 6 of a legal filing (Document 195) from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on April 5, 2021. The Government is arguing that the Court should require notice for all Rule 17(c) subpoenas rather than allowing them to be issued *ex parte* (without notice), citing various legal precedents (Wey, Earls, Skelos, St. Lawrence, Boyle) to support the position that *ex parte* proceedings should only be permitted with a compelling reason. Footnotes clarify the Government's concern regarding financial institutions responding to broad subpoenas for impeachment purposes and state that this request does not apply to subpoenas returnable at trial.

This document is Page 9 of a legal filing (Document 195) from April 5, 2021, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The text argues that any records obtained via Rule 17(c) subpoenas must be marked confidential under a protective order and shared with the opposing party, citing that the rule does not allow for secretive evidence gathering. It references the reciprocal discovery obligations of Rule 16 and cites the precedent of United States v. St. Lawrence.