Epstein Secrets

December 2, 2019 United States Attorney's Office Southern District of New York One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Re: United States v. Michael Avenatti Case No. Si 19 Cr 373 (PGG) Gentlemen: 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard Salle 1210 Miami, Florida 33131 Tel 305-285-9019 Far 305-377-9937 sco0€'srcb

Biscayne Boulevard Salle 1210 Miami, Florida 33131 Tel 305-285-9019 Far 305-377-9937 sco0€'srcbnicklawcom write subakklatecom On behalf of Mr. Avenatti, we make the request below pursuant to Rule 16(a)(1)(EXi) and the government's obligations under the Due Process Clause, Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S.

request below pursuant to Rule 16(a)(1)(EXi) and the government's obligations under the Due Process Clause, Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), and their progeny. This request is meant to direct the government's attention to specific evidence. It is not

in to discovery requests in civil litigation. 3 EFTA00103817 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 252 Filed 04/27/21 Page 4 of 9 See United States v. Avenatti, No. (SI) I9-CR-373 (PGG), 2020 WL 86768, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2020). But Rule 17(c) subpoenas are not tools of discovery. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 698

ally impeaching statements `ripen into evidentiary material. . . only if and when the witness testifies at trial...." (citation omitted)). See also Avenatti, 2020 WL 86768, at *6 (rejecting the argument that the defendant needed the recordings in question prior to trial in order "to demonstrate witnesses

. Furthermore, to the extent Maxwell argues that the Government may have the documents and has refused to produce them in contravention of Brady or Giglio, the argument is little more than an attempt to circumvent the discovery processes that are in place. The production of Giglio material has not yet

in to discovery requests in civil litigation. 3 EFTA00104688 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 252 Filed 04/27/21 Page 4 of 9 See United States v. Avenatti, No. (SI) I9-CR-373 (PGG), 2020 WL 86768, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2020). But Rule 17(c) subpoenas are not tools of discovery. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 698

ally impeaching statements `ripen into evidentiary material. . . only if and when the witness testifies at trial...." (citation omitted)). See also Avenatti, 2020 WL 86768, at *6 (rejecting the argument that the defendant needed the recordings in question prior to trial in order "to demonstrate witnesses

. Furthermore, to the extent Maxwell argues that the Government may have the documents and has refused to produce them in contravention of Brady or Giglio, the argument is little more than an attempt to circumvent the discovery processes that are in place. The production of Giglio material has not yet

in to discovery requests in civil litigation. 3 EFTA00081407 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 252 Filed 04/27/21 Page 4 of 9 See United States v. Avenatti, No. (SI) I9-CR-373 (PGG), 2020 WL 86768, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2020). But Rule 17(c) subpoenas are not tools of discovery. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 698

ally impeaching statements `ripen into evidentiary material. . . only if and when the witness testifies at trial...." (citation omitted)). See also Avenatti, 2020 WL 86768, at *6 (rejecting the argument that the defendant needed the recordings in question prior to trial in order "to demonstrate witnesses

. Furthermore, to the extent Maxwell argues that the Government may have the documents and has refused to produce them in contravention of Brady or Giglio, the argument is little more than an attempt to circumvent the discovery processes that are in place. The production of Giglio material has not yet

r 5, 2019 BY EMAIL Scott A. Srebnick, Esq. 201 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1210 Miami, FL 33131 [email protected] Re: United States v. Michael Avenatti, Si 19 Cr. 373 (PGG) Dear Mr. Srebnick: We write in response to your letter dated December 2, 2019, which requests certain information in light o

ncerning the same. In your letter, you cite Federal Rule of Evidence 16(a)(1)(E)(i), the Due Process Clause, Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), and their progeny. However, insofar as your request is premised on the proposition that, as you stated in th

that something useful will turn up." Barnes, 2008 WL 9359654, at *4 (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted); see, e.g., United States v. Avenatti, No. 19 Cr. 373 (PGG), 2020 WL 508682, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2020). The defendant's request for the entire diary is likely to sweep in a signific

a set of recorded statements by Minor Victim-2. To the extent it should be produced, that production is governed by Rule 16, Rule 26.2, Brady, and Giglio, but not Rule 17. See, e.g., United States v. Carton, 17 Cr. 680 (CM), 2018 WL 5818107, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2018) (rejecting a request for a pe

ests in civil litigation. 3 EFTA00020300 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 252 Filed 04/27/21 Page 4 of 9 See United States v. Avenatti, No. (SI) I9-CR-373 (PGG), 2020 WL 86768, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2020). But Rule 17(c) subpoenas are not tools of discovery. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 698

ally impeaching statements `ripen into evidentiary material. . . only if and when the witness testifies at trial...." (citation omitted)). See also Avenatti, 2020 WL 86768, at *6 (rejecting the argument that the defendant needed the recordings in question prior to trial in order "to demonstrate witnesses

. Furthermore, to the extent Maxwell argues that the Government may have the documents and has refused to produce them in contravention of Brady or Giglio, the argument is little more than an attempt to circumvent the discovery processes that are in place. The production of Giglio material has not yet

that something useful will turn up." Barnes, 2008 WL 9359654, at *4 (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted); see, e.g., United States v. Avenatti, No. 19 Cr. 373 (PGG), 2020 WL 508682, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2020). The defendant's request for the entire diary is likely to sweep in a signific

Filed 05/04/21 Page 7 of 9 Page 7 individual "is a prospective witness in this case; the Government will provide Carton with his 3500, Jencks and Giglio material by the deadline set by the Court"); United States v. Yudong Zhu, No. 13 Cr. 761 (VM), 2014 WL 5366107, at *3 & n.3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 2014)