## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

X
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
v.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant.
X

## REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MS. MAXWELL'S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS ONE THROUGH SIX OF THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT FOR PRE-INDICTMENT DELAY

Here's the information extracted from the image:

Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell:

*   Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, Laura A. Menninger: HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.
*   Christian R. Everdell: COHEN & GRESSER LLP
*   Bobbi C. Sternheim: Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim

Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell

EFTA00029280

The significant delay in prosecuting these charges has substantially prejudiced Ms. Maxwell, and the government has offered no legitimate reason for the tactical delay. Indeed, many of the arguments made by the government in response to Ms. Maxwell's motions reveal new information that undercut its claims about the origins of, and motives behind, this prosecution.

Ms. Maxwell raised this issue pretrial, as required by Fed. R. Crim. P 12(b)(3)(A)(ii). In her opening memorandum Ms. Maxwell noted that significant discovery related to the allegations had not yet been provided by the government, that her investigation is ongoing, and requested that the Court defer ruling on this motion.

The government's responses to Ms. Maxwell's motions, including its response to this motion, underscore the legitimacy of Ms. Maxwell's continued request that the Court hold this issue open. As reflected in the various pleadings, the government did have communications with lawyers for civil litigants and did have information about the allegations made in the indictment well before it claims the investigation was opened. Ms. Maxwell learned about these things only because the government felt the need to make partial disclosures in an attempt to defend its actions.

In its response to the instant motion, the government, without actually disclosing the witness's statements, selectively "proffers" "facts" to justify its position but tells Ms. Maxwell and the Court that we should, apparently, just trust the government because "the underlying information, which is contained in the FBI 302 reports of interviews with the victims, will be produced to the defense as 3500 material in advance of trial." Resp. at 55 fn. 21.

As discussed in her Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Specificity, for a Bill of Particulars, and for Pretrial Disclosures, the government's failure to provide adequate information about the

1

EFTA00029281

allegations in the indictment continues to prejudice Ms. Maxwell's ability to investigate and defend this matter. It is fundamentally unfair for the government to withhold basic information while at the same time making representations about that information to the Court when convenient. This type of selective disclosure by one party in litigation is disfavored. See, e.g., United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, (1975); United States v. Bilzerian, 926 F.2d 1285 (2d Cir. 1991); In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 219 F.3d 175, 182-84 (2d Cir.2000); Granite Partners, L.P. v. Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc., 184 F.R.D. 49, 54 (S.D.N.Y. 1999); Worthington v. Endee, 177 F.R.D. 113, 116-17 (N.D.N.Y. 1998); Peck v. United States, 514 F. Supp. 210, 213 (S.D.N.Y.), on reargument, 522 F. Supp. 245 (S.D.N.Y. 1981); State of N. D. ex reL Olson v. Andrus, 581 F.2d 177, 182 (8th Cir. 1978) (selective disclosure exhibited by the government in this action is "intolerable as a matter of policy").

It would be inefficient and a waste of judicial resources to continue to litigate this issue piecemeal. Moreover, until Ms. Maxwell has complete relevant information, she cannot precisely identify the many witnesses and documents that are unavailable to her as a result of the pretrial delay.

## CONCLUSION

Accordingly, Ms. Maxwell requests that the Court defer consideration of her Motion to Dismiss Counts One Through Six of the Superseding Indictment for Pit-Indictment Delay until after the government has produced all of the discovery in this matter, including, but not limited to any alleged F.R.E. 404(b) information, all witness statements, and all Brady and Giglio material.

Dated: March 15, 2021

2

EFTA00029282

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca

/s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca

Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
- Jeffrey S. Pagliuca; Laura A. Menninger — HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.
  - Three redacted lines (black bars)
- Christian R. Everdell — COHEN & GRESSER LLP
  - Two redacted lines (black bars)
- Bobbi C. Sternheim — Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
  - Three redacted lines (one long bar on the first line, two shorter below)

Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell

3

EFTA00029283

## Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on March 15, 2021, I served by email, pursuant Rule 2(B) of the Court's individual practices in criminal cases, the Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Ms. Maxwell's Motion to Dismiss Counts One Through Six of the Superseding Indictmentfor PreIndictment Delay upon the following:

The image shows the address for the U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY, with the specific names and email addresses redacted.

s/ Christian R. Everdell

4

EFTA00029284