Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 247 Filed 04/23/21 Page1of17
BOIES
SCHILLER
—_ FLEXNER
Sigrid S. McCawley
Telephone: (954) 377-4223
Email:
[email protected]
April 5, 2021
VIA EMAIL (FILED UNDER TEMPORARY SEAL)
The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
40 Foley Square
New York, New York 10007
Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
Rule 17 Subpoena to Boies Schiller Flexner LLP
Dear Judge Nathan:
I write on behalf of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP (“BSF”) in further support of its objections
to Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell’s motion for an order authorizing a subpoena to BSF pursuant to
Rule 17(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (the “Subpoena”).! As the Defendant’s
response makes clear, she seeks to serve a Rule 17 subpoena on BSF because she is dissatisfied
with the Government’s discovery efforts thus far. Thus, she is using Rule 17 to attempt to obtain
discovery that she has been unable to obtain from the Government under Rule 16 and Brady,
including discovery that is subject to a pending motion before the Court. This is an improper use
of a Rule 17 subpoena. If the Defendant believes that the Government has not fulfilled its
discovery obligations under Rule 16, Brady, or Giglio, she must address that issue with the
Government and the Court rather than serving overbroad and burdensome subpoenas on third
parties. And if the Defendant is not entitled to the discovery she seeks from the Government, then
: The Defendant refers to BSF’s objections as a “motion to quash,” but the Court has not yet
granted Defendant’s motion to authorize the Subpoena to BSF. BSF thus requests that the
Defendant’s motion to authorize the Subpoena be denied.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 | (t) 954 356 0011 | (f) 8954 356 0022 | www.bsfilp.com
DOJ-OGR-00004001