Epstein Secrets

or who was deposed in the case. The prosecutor defended the subpoena's breadth—which sought all "copies of discovery and related materials" irMv. Marvell—on the ground that the government simply had too little knowledge of what was in the law firm's files to craft a more narrowly tailored subpoena:

to make reference to certain subjects relating to the Investigation." That "publicly available information," the government claimed, indicated that the Boies Schiller file might "contain information relevant to the ongoing Investigation" of Jeffrey Epstein. Ex. C, 14. Nowhere did the government acknowledge that B

uring two civil depositions conducted by Boies Schiller in a defamation action it filed against Maxwell on behalf of one of the firm's clients. v. Marvell, Case No. 15-cv-7433 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y). A Protective Order entered in that case prohibited the parties and their lawyers from sharing confidential di

n in April 2019. Ex. E. Judge McMahon held that conference for one reason: to learn "about contacts between the United States Attorney's Office and the Boies Schiller law firm prior to the issuance of the subpoena." Ex. E, p 2. The Assistant U.S. Attorney told Judge McMahon that the government's investigation beg

uring two civil depositions conducted by Boies Schiller in a defamation action it filed against Maxwell on behalf of one of the firm's clients. v. Marvell, Case No. 15-cv-7433 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y). A Protective Order entered in that case prohibited the parties and their lawyers from sharing confidential di

n in April 2019. Ex. E. Judge McMahon held that conference for one reason: to learn "about contacts between the United States Attorney's Office and the Boies Schiller law firm prior to the issuance of the subpoena." Ex. E, p 2. The Assistant U.S. Attorney told Judge McMahon that the government's investigation beg