487.pdf

Type

pdf

Source set

house-oversight-doj

Pages

8

Text status

Searchable text available

OCR confidence

0.9380734352290715

Original source

Extracted text

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 487 _ Filed 11/22/21 Page1of8 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of New York   The Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew’s Plaza New York, New York 10007 November 18, 2021 BY E-MAIL The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Judge Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Dear Judge Nathan: The Government respectfully submits this letter motion to quash the defendant’s Rule 17(c)(3) subpoena to Jordana Feldman, the administrator of the Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program (EVCP). For the reasons set forth below, the subpoena should be quashed. ! 1. Applicable Law As the defendant acknowledges, she bears the burden of satisfying the standard in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974). (Def. Mot. at 1). Pursuant to that standard, the “party seeking issuance of [a Rule 17(c)] subpoena must clear three hurdles: (1) relevancy; (2) admissibility; (3) specificity.” United States v. Cole, 2021 WL 912425, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). The proponent must also establish that the records sought “are not otherwise procurable.” /d. (quoting Nixon, 418 U.S. at 699-700).   ' For sake of simplicity, the Government uses the term “Minor Victims” to include Witness-3. The Government acknowledges the Court’s order that Witness-3 should not be referenced at trial as a victim. DOJ-OGR-00007393 

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 487 Filed 11/22/21 Page2of8 Page 2 The Nixon test is enforced strictly. As the Supreme Court has explained, “[i]t was not intended by Rule 16 to give a limited right of discovery, and then by Rule 17 to give a right of discovery in the broadest terms.” Bowman Dairy Co. v. United States, 341 U.S. 214, 220 (1951); see also United States v. Purin, 486 F.2d 1363, 1368 (2d Cir. 1973) (“A subpoena duces tecum in a criminal case is not intended as a means of discove…

Open in the interactive archive →