Epstein Secrets

Boies it was issued. The materials provided by Boies Schiller inclnin addition tIl inscripts of Maxwell and other individuals, materials proday N/14!I

ot. 3, Ex. D at 17). In support of her argument, Maxwell cites again to the Daily News Article, which reports that "after Maxwell's two depositions, David Boies himself apparently approached the government in the summer of 2016, asking `if the Southern District would consider charging Maxwell with perjury' (

t that the defendant "had not engaged in any business activity during the preceding six years").53 Accordingly, and consistent with the holdings in Ruiz and Broccolo, this Court should deny the severance motion. The defendant argues that the offenses are not connected because they involve different time periods.

ot. 3, Ex. D at 17). In support of her argument, Maxwell cites again to the Daily News Article, which reports that "after Maxwell's two depositions, David Boies himself apparently approached the government in the summer of 2016, asking if the Southern District would consider charging Maxwell with perjury"' (

y contrast, the Government accurately conveyed to Chief Judge McMahon the opening of its investigation in late 2018, the reason it made contact with Boies Schiller shortly thereafter and served a subpoena in February 2019, and that no documents governed by the protective order had yet been produced. A

t that the defendant "had not engaged in any business activity during the preceding six years").53 Accordingly, and consistent with the holdings in Ruiz and Broccolo, this Court should deny the severance motion. The defendant argues that the offenses are not connected because they involve different time periods.

ot. 3, Ex. D at 17). In support of her argument, Maxwell cites again to the Daily News Article, which reports that "after Maxwell's two depositions, David Boies himself apparently approached the government in the summer of 2016, asking if the Southern District would consider charging Maxwell with perjury"' (

y contrast, the Government accurately conveyed to Chief Judge McMahon the opening of its investigation in late 2018, the reason it made contact with Boies Schiller shortly thereafter and served a subpoena in February 2019, and that no documents governed by the protective order had yet been produced. A

t that the defendant "had not engaged in any business activity during the preceding six years").53 Accordingly, and consistent with the holdings in Ruiz and Broccolo, this Court should deny the severance motion. The defendant argues that the offenses are not connected because they involve different time periods.

rtindell standard. "circ --- it cited 11 times in its argument to both relevant courts. (See (Exs. 8 Instead, the Government issued a subpoena to Boies in connection with its investigation, and made an application to two judges to modify Rule 26(c) protective orders that precluded full compliance

ot. 3, Ex. D at 17). In support of her argument, Maxwell cites again to the Daily News Article, which reports that "after Maxwell's two depositions, David Boies himself apparently approached the government in the summer of 2016, asking `if the Southern District would consider charging Maxwell with perjury' (

rt that the defendant "had not engaged in any business activity during the preceding six years").54 Accordingly, and consistent with the holding in Ruiz and Broccolo, this Court should deny the severance motion. 54 While the defendant may argue that the fact that her deposition, unlike Ruiz, did not involve crim

ot. 3, Ex. D at 17). In support of her argument, Maxwell cites again to the Daily News Article, which reports that "after Maxwell's two depositions, David Boies himself apparently approached the government in the summer of 2016, asking `if the Southern District would consider charging Maxwell with perjury"'

y contrast, the Government accurately conveyed to Chief Judge McMahon the opening of its investigation in late 2018, the reason it made contact with Boies Schiller shortly thereafter and served a subpoena in February 2019, and that no documents governed by the protective order had yet been produced. A

t that the defendant "had not engaged in any business activity during the preceding six years").53 Accordingly, and consistent with the holdings in Ruiz and Broccolo, this Court should deny the severance motion. The defendant argues that the offenses are not connected because they involve different time periods.