What is document EFTA00021937?

This is an email from federal prosecutors to Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team dated July 27, 2020, sent during negotiations over a protective order in her criminal sex trafficking case. The prosecutors are scheduling a meeting to discuss how discovery materials should be handled and whether Maxwell could publicly name alleged victims.

Who is mentioned in this document?

The document mentions Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell as the accused whose victims are at issue. Defense attorneys Christian Everdell, Mark S. Cohen, Jeff Paliuca, and Laura Menninger are addressed. The prosecutors' names are partially redacted but this was sent by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York.

What does this document reveal?

The document reveals the prosecution's strategy to protect victim privacy by preventing Maxwell from publicly naming anyone who had self-identified as a victim of either Epstein or Maxwell. It also shows the government questioning whether Maxwell's defense had any legal precedent for restricting how prosecutors could share evidence with witnesses, suggesting the defense was making unusual demands. The Court ultimately sided with the government on these protective order disputes.

Why was victim anonymity important in this case?

Prosecutors wanted victims to be referred to by pseudonyms or anonymized identifiers in public filings to protect their privacy and dignity. Maxwell's defense sought the ability to name victims publicly, particularly those who had spoken to media. The Court adopted the government's position, and Maxwell was later scolded by a judge for attempting to name victims in post-conviction filings.

What was the outcome of this protective order dispute?

Judge Alison J. Nathan entered the protective order on July 30, 2020, adopting the government's proposed language. Maxwell appealed to the Second Circuit seeking to modify the order, but the appeals court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, ruling it could not review interlocutory protective orders in criminal cases.

What is document EFTA00021937?

This is an email from federal prosecutors to Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team dated July 27, 2020, sent during negotiations over a protective order in her criminal sex trafficking case. The prosecutors are scheduling a meeting to discuss how discovery materials should be handled and whether Maxwell could publicly name alleged victims.

Who is mentioned in this document?

The document mentions Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell as the accused whose victims are at issue. Defense attorneys Christian Everdell, Mark S. Cohen, Jeff Paliuca, and Laura Menninger are addressed. The prosecutors' names are partially redacted but this was sent by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York.

What does this document reveal?

The document reveals the prosecution's strategy to protect victim privacy by preventing Maxwell from publicly naming anyone who had self-identified as a victim of either Epstein or Maxwell. It also shows the government questioning whether Maxwell's defense had any legal precedent for restricting how prosecutors could share evidence with witnesses, suggesting the defense was making unusual demands. The Court ultimately sided with the government on these protective order disputes.

Why was victim anonymity important in this case?

Prosecutors wanted victims to be referred to by pseudonyms or anonymized identifiers in public filings to protect their privacy and dignity. Maxwell's defense sought the ability to name victims publicly, particularly those who had spoken to media. The Court adopted the government's position, and Maxwell was later scolded by a judge for attempting to name victims in post-conviction filings.

What was the outcome of this protective order dispute?

Judge Alison J. Nathan entered the protective order on July 30, 2020, adopting the government's proposed language. Maxwell appealed to the Second Circuit seeking to modify the order, but the appeals court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, ruling it could not review interlocutory protective orders in criminal cases.

EFTA00021937

An email from federal prosecutors to Ghislaine Maxwell's defense attorneys dated July 27, 2020, scheduling a meet-and-confer regarding the protective order in her criminal case and raising questions about victim identification in public filings.

This is a prosecution email sent in the early stages of United States v. Maxwell (20 Cr. 330), the federal sex trafficking case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The government attorneys are responding to a court order requiring both parties to negotiate protective order terms. The email reveals a key dispute: prosecutors wanted to prevent Maxwell from publicly naming alleged victims of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, while also questioning whether the defense could cite any precedent for restricting the government's use of its own documents with witnesses. The prosecutors also request a 1 terabyte hard drive for discovery production, indicating the massive scale of evidence in the case.

Key Highlights

•Prosecutors challenge Maxwell's defense to find any federal case where a protective order restricted the government from showing its own documents to witnesses
•Government seeks to prevent Maxwell from publicly naming any victims of Epstein or Maxwell in court filings or statements
•Prosecutors propose using pseudonyms or 'anonymized identifiers' instead of actual victim names in public documents
•Discovery production required a 1 terabyte hard drive, showing the enormous volume of evidence
•Email sent just weeks after Maxwell's July 2, 2020 arrest and July 14 arraignment

Frequently Asked Questions

Books for Further Reading

Perversion of Justice: The Jeffrey Epstein Story

Julie K. Brown

Investigative journalism that broke the Epstein case open

Filthy Rich: The Jeffrey Epstein Story

James Patterson

Bestselling account of Epstein's crimes and network

The Spider: Inside the Tangled Web of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell

Document Information

Bates Range

EFTA00021937

Pages

Document Content

Page 1 - EFTA00021937

From: IS" To: Christian Everdell Cc: "Mark S. Cohen" Jeff Pa liuca < Menninlef Subject: RE: United States v. Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 20:43:15 +0000 'Laura Pursuant to the Court's Order of this afternoon, we write to schedule a telephonic meet and confer on issues relating to a protective order in the above-captioned case. Please let us know what time you are available today between 5:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m., or tomorrow between 9:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. In particular, it would be helpful to get the defendant's current position on the following: Whether you are aware of any case in any federal district in which a protective order was entered in a criminal case that prevented the Government from showing its own documents to prospective witnesses or their counsel without requiring restrictions upon those witnesses and their counsel; Whether you are able to describe any expected reason why it would be necessary or useful for the defendant to reference by name — rather than by pseudonym or other anonymized identifier — any victim in a public statement or publicly-docketed filing (and rather than by sealed filing, if such named identification is necessary), such that the Government may consider whether it can formulate language to address any such concerns, without conceding any right of the defendant to name any individual who has self-identified as a victim of Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell at any time; and Whether the defense is willing to itself propose any language to address the Government's concerns in relation to the issue described immediately above, regarding the defendant's desire to be able to reference by name any victim in a public statement or publicly-docketed filing, without conceding that any such right exists. Additionally, also relating to the production of discovery, please mail, or otherwise have delivered, a 1 terabyte hard drive for purposes of the Government's discovery production. While we are in the process of determining the size of an initial production, and the size may total substantially less than 1 terabyte, that will ensure our ability to make a robust initial production and should be suitable for subsequent productions as well. That can be sent to my attention at our Office. Regards, Assistant U.S. Attorney Southern District of New York EFTA00021937