McMahon that the prosecutors had no idea what was in Boies Schiller's file. Indeed, he insisted, there had been no contact whatsoever between Boies Schiller and United States Attorney's Office before the government commenced its investigation. Nor, said the prosecutor, did Boies Schiller have any role in

aw firm had provided that information well before the investigation began. The government did indeed have previous contact with the firm. And Boies Schiller was instrumental in fomenting the Maxwell prosecution. The record is surpassingly clear: But for the government's misrepresentation, witting or not

led the "tactical" motion months into the suit despite having known for some five years that the firm EFTA00026703 --- PAGE BREAK --- represents Schiller said. Moreover, Dershowitz's brief contact with Sires never resulted in the formation of an attorney-clien re ationship. "Even though he knew that

check had not been completed, Dershowitz copied Mr. Sires into a group e-mail attaching a memorandum, which Dershowitz now claims was confidential," Schiller wrote, adding that the memo was addressed to Dershowitz's "friends" and contained no confidential information. "This is an attempt to manufacture a

1 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 2 A. The Protective Order in v. Maxwell 2 B. Maxwell's April and July 2016 depositions 4 C. The Settlement And Boies Schiller's Refusal To Comply With The Protective Order 6 D. The Government's False Statements To Judge McMahon 6 E. Judge Netburn Separately Rejects An

law firm had provided that information well before the investigation began. The government did indeed have previous contact with the firm. And Pomp Schiller was instrumental in fomenting the Maxwell prosecution. The record is surpassingly clear: But for the government's misrepresentation, witting or not

n this in more detail. Maxwell Pre-Trial Mot. Nos. 4 8c 5. But the point is this: The defamation case should have been extremely narrow, but Boies Schiller transformed it into something much broader—a proxy prosecution of Epstein and Maxwell for allegedly trafficking and abusing Giuffre, which then comp

not actively investigating her. That understanding, as it turned out, was incorrect, but it was a misunderstanding deliberately encouraged by Boies Schiller with cooperation from the government. If Boies Schiller had disclosed that material Judge Sweet ordered them to disclose, Maxwell would have invoked

1 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 2 A. The Protective Order in v. Maxwell 2 B. Maxwell's April and July 2016 depositions 4 C. The Settlement And Boies Schiller's Refusal To Comply With The Protective Order 6 D. The Government's False Statements To Judge McMahon 6 E. Judge Netburn Separately Rejects An

stify the government's secret, ex parte application . Ex. H, p 6. Judge Netburn also implicitly recognized what Judge McMahon never knew—that Boies Schiller was all too eager for the government to investigate and prosecute Maxwell: 6 Maxwell has not yet been provided discovery of whether Boies Schiller s

check had not been completed, Dershowitz copied Mr. Sires into a group e-mail attaching a memorandum, which Dershowitz now claims was confidential," Schiller wrote, adding that the memo was addressed to Dershowitz's "friends" and contained no confidential information. "This is an attempt to manufacture a

ut further briefing. Dershowitz filed the "tactical" motion months into the suit despite having known for some five years that the firm represents Schiller said. Moreover, Dershowitz's brief contact with Sires never resulted in the formation of an attorney-client relationship. "Even though he knew that

From: To: Subject: RE: Law360, Dershowitz Can Pursue Bid To DQ Boies Schiller In Sex Case Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 20:37:51 +0000 Importance: Normal Yeah the other day I asked them too, and they said no — they said they'd let

appeared before Judge McMahon barely four months later, however, he told her none of this, unequivocally and falsely disavowing any role by Boies Schiller in fomenting the investigation and denying any contacts between Boies Schiller and his office before November 2018. Even though AUSA had a "complet

granted Maxwell's motion to sever the perjury counts but denied the remaining motions, except for the suppression motions with respect to the Boies Schiller materials, which she did not address (they will be decided "in due course"). EFTA00022090

appeared before Judge McMahon barely four months later, however, he told her none of this, unequivocally and falsely disavowing any role by Boies Schiller in fomenting the investigation and denying any contacts between Boies Schiller and his office before November 2018. Even though AUSA had a "complet

rte hearings regarding those pleadings, and ex parte rulings on the pleadings. As least one set of individuals outside this prosecution, the Boies, Schiller & Flexner lawyers cooperating with the Government, are aware of the Unsealing Materials. Moreover, these are the types of pleadings that the Second

4, 5 ii EFTA00071611 Case 1:20-cv-00833-PAE Document 42 Filed 02/10/21 Page 4 of 15 Radcliffe v. IRS, 536 F. Supp. 2d 423 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) 2 Schiller v. City of New York, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4285 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2007) 8 Seife v. Dep't of State, 366 F. Supp. 3d 592 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) 8 Shapi

granted Maxwell's motion to sever the perjury counts but denied the remaining motions, except for the suppression motions with respect to the Boies Schiller materials, which she punted on. There is some mildly positive language in here about our discovery approach in this case, and she notes that our pre

ed is a draft response. For your reference, I've also attached (1) Judge Nathan's order, and (2) the letters on the subject from Maxwell and Boies Schiller. Thanks, Assistant United States Attorney Southern District of New York EFTA00031693

lass Action I;;;Law360 Pro Say Podcast Listen to our new podcast here LAW FIRMS Allen & Overy Anderson Kill Baker Donelson Bartlit Beck Boies Schiller Butler Rubin Chaffetz Lindsey Cleary Gottlieb Cohen Milstein Cohen Seglias Cooley Coots Henke DLA Piper Epstein Becker Green Fish & Richard

ed is a draft response. For your reference, I've also attached (1) Judge Nathan's order, and (2) the letters on the subject from Maxwell and Boies Schiller. Thanks, Assistant United States Attorney Southern District of New York EFTA00022516

tance, unlike in Subpoena Duces Tecum, the posture of the Application does not involve a motion to quash. Of course, should this Court permit Boies Schiller to respond, Boies Schiller would have the right to move to quash—including, for example, if a grand jury subpoena made any improper requests, such a

nsome must litigate under her own name after she wrote a Nov. 15 letter to The New York Times, which the Times published, in which she defended Boies Schiller and firm chairman David Boies against criticism stemming from Boies’ work for Harvey Weinstein. Ransome identified herself as Jane Doe 43 in the Tim

no. 67].) retained Cooper & Kirk to represent her shortly therea ter. 4 EFTA00074893 casQaf:€1.§%2043gMnenbegrAeAFAPir4ilieVagri-V26'ageV 413 Schiller, the Maxwell Protective Order explicitly provides that (1) discovery materials designated CONFIDENTIAL cannot be disclosed or used outside of the

ALLEN,JOSEPH FISHER,MARJORIE S SCHELLER,DR ZBIGNIEW PAGLIARI,RICHARD A KIER