Epstein Secrets

ers to the Court so that the information can be made available to Maxwell, if appropriate, at the conclusion of each witness's direct testimony. See United States v. Giampa, No. S 92-CR-437 (PKL), 1992 WL 296440, at *3 *4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 1992); United States v. Ferguson, No. 3:06-CR-137 (CFD), 2007 WL 457730

atory evidence is insufficient to justify enforcement of a Rule 17(c) subpoena (or, as here, issuance of such a subpoena in the face of objections). See United States v. Rich, No. S 83-CR- 579 (SWK), 1984 WL 845, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 1984). Maxwell's reliance on cases involving the Government's obligations und

of 9 the Court so that the information may be made available to Maxwell, if appropriate, at the conclusion of each witness's direct testimony. See Giampa, 1992 WL 296440, at *3; Ferguson, 2007 WL 4577303, at *3. The Court will reserve on Requests 9 through I 1 in order to allow the Government to wei

ers to the Court so that the information can be made available to Maxwell, if appropriate, at the conclusion of each witness's direct testimony. See United States v. Giampa, No. S 92-CR-437 (PKL), 1992 WL 296440, at *3 *4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 1992); United States v. Ferguson, No. 3:06-CR-137 (CFD), 2007 WL 457730

atory evidence is insufficient to justify enforcement of a Rule 17(c) subpoena (or, as here, issuance of such a subpoena in the face of objections). See United States v. Rich, No. S 83-CR- 579 (SWK), 1984 WL 845, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 1984). Maxwell's reliance on cases involving the Government's obligations und

of 9 the Court so that the information may be made available to Maxwell, if appropriate, at the conclusion of each witness's direct testimony. See Giampa, 1992 WL 296440, at *3; Ferguson, 2007 WL 4577303, at *3. The Court will reserve on Requests 9 through I 1 in order to allow the Government to wei

ers to the Court so that the information can be made available to Maxwell, if appropriate, at the conclusion of each witness's direct testimony. See United States v. Giampa, No. S 92-CR-437 (PKL), 1992 WL 296440, at *3 *4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 1992); United States v. Ferguson, No. 3:06-CR-137 (CFD), 2007 WL 457730

atory evidence is insufficient to justify enforcement of a Rule 17(c) subpoena (or, as here, issuance of such a subpoena in the face of objections). See United States v. Rich, No. S 83-CR- 579 (SWK), 1984 WL 845, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 1984). Maxwell's reliance on cases involving the Government's obligations und

of 9 the Court so that the information may be made available to Maxwell, if appropriate, at the conclusion of each witness's direct testimony. See Giampa, 1992 WL 296440, at *3; Ferguson, 2007 WL 4577303, at *3. The Court will reserve on Requests 9 through I 1 in order to allow the Government to wei

forth below, the subpoena should be quashed.' I. 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

judicial over-emphasis on the witness's credibility.'" United States v. Ray, 337 F.R.D. 561, 571 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2020) (quoting United States v. Giampa, No. 92 Cr. 437 (PKL), 1992 WL 296440, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 1992)). The Government has provided notice of this subpoena to the Minor Victims and

BY ECF The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Judge Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 Re: United Stases v. Chislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Dear Judge Nathan: The Government respectfully submits this letter in connection with the Court's Order o

d States v. Ray, -- F.R.D. --, No. 20 Cr. 110 (LJL), 2020 WL 6939677, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2020) (alterations omitted) (quoting United States v. Giampa, No. 92 Cr. 437 (PKL), 1992 WL 296440, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 1992)); see United States v. Becgstein, No. 16 EFTA00018239 --- PAGE BREAK --- Ca