Document 70

Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 70 Filed 08/05/25 Page 1 of 4 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of New York The Jacob K. Javits Federal Building 26 Federal Plaza, 37th Floor New York, New York 10278 August 4, 2025 The Honorable Richard M. Berman United States District Judge Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, New York 10007 The Honorable Paul A. Engelmayer United States District Judge Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, New York 1007 Re: United States v. Jeffrey Epstein, 19 Cr. 490 (RMB) United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (PAE) Dear Judges Berman and Engelmayer: The Government writes respectfully to respond to the Court's orders, dated July 31, 2025, directing the Government to provide additional information regarding grand jury materials the Government has asked the Court to unseal in these cases. (Epstein Dkt. 67; Maxwell Dkt. 797). In particular, on July 18, 2025, the Government moved the Court to unseal grand jury transcripts from these cases, subject to appropriate redactions. (Epstein Dkt. 61; Maxwell Dkt. 785). The Court directed the Government to provide supplemental briefing (Epstein Dkt. 63; Maxwell Dkt. 789), which the Government submitted on July 29, 2025 (Epstein Dkt. 66; Maxwell Dkt. 796). In addition, the Court set a schedule whereby the defendants and victims could set out their positions on or before August 5, 2025. (Epstein Dkt. 63 at 3–4; Maxwell Dkt. 789 at 4). On July 31, 2025, the Court directed the Government to provide additional information by August 4, 2025, in particular, in the Epstein case, a letter: 1. Verifying the date(s) of all grand jury presentation(s) in this case 2. Providing all exhibits shown to grand jurors; 3. Stating whether the Government moves to unseal the grand jury exhibits as well as the transcripts; 4. Identifying with specificity the grand jury exhibits that are not already part of the public record (They may be redacted for any public release); DOJ-OGR-00000761 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 70 Filed 11/06/20 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------X UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, - v. - GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. ---------------------------------------------------------------X STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF NEW YORK : ss.: SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ) MAURENE COMEY, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 1746, hereby affirms under penalty of perjury: 1. I am an Assistant United States Attorney in the Office of Audrey Strauss, Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. I am one of the Assistants who represents the Government in these proceedings. 2. I certify pursuant to Local Criminal Rule 16.1 that the Government has conferred in good faith with counsel to the defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell, regarding the Government's request to extend the deadline for the production of documents extracted from electronic devices seized from Jeffrey Epstein (the "Production") from November 9, 2020 to November 23, 2020, and that the parties have been unable to reach agreement. 3. In particular, on November 4, 2020, the Government asked defense counsel whether they would consent to a two-week extension to allow adequate time for an outside vendor to finish bates stamping and downloading the Production. On the morning of November 6, 2020, DOJ-OGR-00001822 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 70, 04/26/2023, 3505512, Page1 of 8 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 Telephone: 212-857-8500 MOTION INFORMATION STATEMENT Docket Number(s): 22-1426 Caption [use short title] Motion for: Permission to file an oversized brief and extension of time to file the appellee's brief and appellant's reply brief Set forth below precise, complete statement of relief sought: (1) permission to file a brief of no more than 20,000 words; (2) 30-day extension of time to file the appellee's brief, until June 29, 2023; and (3) if that extension is granted, an extension of time for the appellant to file the reply brief until July 27, 2023. United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell MOVING PARTY: United States of America OPPOSING PARTY: Ghislaine Maxwell Plaintiff Defendant Appellant/Petitioner Appellee/Respondent MOVING ATTORNEY: Damian Williams, U.S. Attorney, Southern District of New York OPPOSING ATTORNEY: Diana Samson By: Andrew Rohrbach, Assistant U.S. Attorney Aidala, Bertuna, & Kamins PC One Saint Andrew's Plaza, New York, NY 10007 546 Fifth Avenue - Sixth Floor, New York, NY 10036 (212) 637-2345; Email: Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov (212) 486-0011, Email: diana@aidalalaw.com Court- Judge/ Agency appealed from: The Honorable Alison J. Nathan, United States Circuit Judge, sitting by designation Please check appropriate boxes: Has movant notified opposing counsel (required by Local Rule 27.1): Yes No (explain): Opposing counsel's position on motion: Unopposed Opposed Don't Know Does opposing counsel intend to file a response: Yes No Don't Know Is oral argument on motion requested? Yes No (requests for oral argument will not necessarily be granted) Has argument date of appeal been set? Yes No If yes, enter date: FOR EMERGENCY MOTIONS, MOTIONS FOR STAYS AND INJUNCTIONS PENDING APPEAL: Has this request for relief been made below? Yes No Has this relief been previously sought in this court? Yes No Requested return date and explanation of emergency: Signature of Moving Attorney: Adam A. Richman Date: 4/26/23 Service by: CM/ECF Other [Attach proof of service] Form T-1080 (rev.12-13) DOJ-OGR-00021163 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 70 Filed 08/05/25 Page 2 of 4 Hon. Richard M. Berman, U.S.D.J. Hon. Paul A. Engelmayer, U.S.D.J. August 4, 2025 Page 2 of 4 5. Analyzing how the Nolle Prosequi ([Epstein] ECF No. 52) filed in this case impacts proposed disclosure, with legal authorities. (Epstein Dkt. 67). In the Maxwell case, the Court directed the Government to provide additional information by August 4, 2025, in particular, a letter: 1. Stating whether the Government moves to unseal the grand jury exhibits as well as the transcripts, or just the transcripts. 2. Identifying with specificity the grand jury exhibits, as redacted for public release, that are not already part of the public record. In making this assessment, the Government should take into account whether the unredacted portions of these exhibits were received in evidence during trial in this case, otherwise disclosed on the docket of this case, or disclosed in the course of civil litigation, see, e.g., Giuffre v. Maxwell, 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP). 3. Identifying with specificity the information testified to in the grand jury transcripts, as redacted for proposed release, that is not already part of the public record, taking into account the sources above. (Maxwell Dkt. 797). Because the Court's Orders, and the information sought, are consistent in several respects, the Government respectfully submits this consolidated letter response. First, at this time, the Government has moved only to unseal the grand jury transcripts in these cases. Of course, the grand jury exhibits are not the only exhibits in these cases; a large number of exhibits were admitted at the Maxwell trial, which trial exhibits are—subject to judicially approved redactions and/or sealing—presumptively public documents. See, e.g., United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1049 (2d Cir. 1995) (“the public has an especially strong right of access to evidence introduced in trials” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); United States v. Akhvan, 532 F. Supp. 3d 181, 186 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) (“trial exhibits are judicial documents to which an ‘especially strong’ common law presumption of access applies” (quoting Amodeo, 71 F.3d at 1049)). The Government previously made those trial exhibits—subject to any judicially approved redactions and/or sealing—available to the public through a website during the Maxwell trial. The Government respectfully requests leave of the Court to advise the Court by August 8, 2025, of its position with respect to unsealing of the grand jury exhibits. Such timing will permit the Government to consider (with respect to its underlying position as well as with respect to any --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 70 Filed 11/06/20 Page 2 of 2 defense counsel indicated that they would consent to the requested extension on four conditions. First, the defense asked that the motion deadlines in this case be extended by three weeks. Second, the defense asked that the Government provide the defendant with a laptop on which to review her discovery at the Metropolitan Detention Center. Third, the defense asked that the Government provide the defense with the names of the three Minor Victims listed in the Indictment by November 23, 2020. Fourth, the defense asked that the Government provide the defense with all Jencks Act material by November 23, 2020. In response, the Government agreed to the first two conditions, but did not agree to the second two conditions. Accordingly, the parties have been unable to reach agreement on the requested two-week extension of the deadline for the Production. 4. I hereby certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. Dated: New York, New York November 6, 2020 Maurene Comey Assistant United States Attorney Telephone: (212) 637-2324 2 DOJ-OGR-00001823 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 70, 04/26/2023, 3505512, Page2 of 8 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, : AFFIRMATION -v- : Docket No. 22-1426 GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant-Appellant. STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ANDREW A. ROHRBACH, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, hereby affirms under penalty of perjury: 1. I am an Assistant United States Attorney in the Office of Damian Williams, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. I am one of the attorneys representing the Government in this appeal. 2. I respectfully submit this Affirmation in support of the Government's unopposed motion (1) to file an oversized brief of no more than 20,000 words in order to respond adequately to the arguments raised in the brief of defendant-appellant Ghislaine Maxwell, which uses approximately 19,950 words, and (2) for a 30-day extension of time to file its brief from May 30, 2023, until June 29, 2023, DOJ-OGR-00021164 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 70 Filed 08/05/25 Page 3 of 4 Hon. Richard M. Berman, U.S.D.J. Hon. Paul A. Engelmayer, U.S.D.J. August 4, 2025 Page 3 of 4 necessary redactions) any submissions to the Court by the victims identified in the grand jury transcripts, which are due to the Court on August 5, 2025. Second, the Epstein grand jury met on June 18, 2019, and July 2, 2019. The Maxwell grand jury met on June 29, 2020, July 8, 2020, and March 29, 2021. Third, the Government has provided the Court with all substantive exhibits from the grand jury presentations in each of the Epstein and Maxwell cases that it currently has in its possession. The Government respectfully submits under seal to Judge Berman one additional grand jury exhibit from the Epstein case that it referenced in its letter to the Court but did not have readily available at that time. Fourth, in connection with this letter, the Government respectfully submits to Judge Engelmayer under seal and ex parte a version of the Maxwell grand jury transcripts that specifically identifies which information in the transcripts is not, as far as the Government is aware, publicly available. As previewed in the Government's submission of July 29, 2025, many of the victims and witnesses testified at trial consistent with the accounts offered in the grand jury by investigating law enforcement witnesses. The enclosed, annotated transcripts show that much of the information provided during the course of the grand jury testimony—with the exception of the identities of certain victims and witnesses—was made publicly available at trial or has otherwise been publicly reported through the public statements of victims and witnesses.1 Fifth, the substantive grand jury exhibits are not currently part of the public record. The Government, however, is undertaking to identify for the Court any specific portions of the grand jury exhibits that are reflected in the public record. In doing so, the Government endeavors to compare the exhibits against the voluminous public and sealed exhibits offered at the Maxwell trial and to review certain relevant civil litigation dockets of which the Government is aware to the extent such dockets are publicly available. The Government respectfully requests leave of the Court to supplement this letter no later than August 8, 2025, in order to respond to item 4 of Judge Berman's Order and item 2 of Judge Engelmayer's Order. Sixth, the nolle prosequi filed in the Epstein case does not impact the proposed disclosure. While the Supreme Court has noted—in a different context—that a Court's "jurisdiction end[s]" when "a nolle prosequi [is] entered," Ex parte Wilson, 140 U.S. 575, 583 (1891), it did so in the context of a court having the ability to enter a judgment. To the contrary, at least one court has explicitly held that a nolle prosequi does not deprive a court of the authority to determine whether to disclose sealed grand jury minutes. United States v. Byoir, 58 F. Supp. 273, 274 (N.D. Tex.), 1 Although there was no public trial of Epstein, the Government is prepared to do a similar analysis regarding the Epstein grand jury transcripts if Judge Berman believes it would assist in the Court's analysis of the In re Craig factors related to the Government's motion in Epstein. DOJ-OGR-00000763 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 70, 04/26/2023, 3505512, Page3 of 8 and a related extension of the deadline for Maxwell to file her reply brief until July 27, 2023. 3. Maxwell appeals from a judgment of conviction entered on June 29, 2022, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, by the Honorable Alison J. Nathan, United States Circuit Judge, sitting by designation, following a four-and-a-half-week jury trial. 4. Superseding Indictment S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) (the “Indictment”) was filed on March 29, 2021, in eight counts. Count One charged Maxwell with conspiracy to entice minors to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Count Two charged Maxwell with enticement of a minor to engage in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 and 2. Count Three charged Maxwell with conspiracy to transport minors to engage in criminal sexual activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Count Four charged Maxwell with transportation of a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2423(a) and 2. Count Five charged Maxwell with sex trafficking conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Count Six charged Maxwell with sex trafficking of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591(a), (b)(2), and 2. Counts Seven and Eight charged Maxwell with perjury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. The charges related to Maxwell’s facilitation and participation in the sexual abuse of minor girls over the course of a decade. 2 DOJ-OGR-00021165 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 70 Filed 08/05/25 Page 4 of 4 Hon. Richard M. Berman, U.S.D.J. Hon. Paul A. Engelmayer, U.S.D.J. August 4, 2025 Page 4 of 4 affirmed 147 F.2d 336 (5th Cir. 1945) ("The same jurisdiction that was sought in the beginning continues to exist insofar as the integrity and preservation of the minutia and minutes and proceedings of those steps are concerned. What was done here is evidence and may be advantaged by either party, having in mind, of course, the question of the secrecy of the grand jury proceedings. And the only jurisdiction over such matters is in this court."); see also, e.g., Dale v. Bartels, 532 F. Supp. 973, 978-79 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) (ordering limited disclosure of sealed grand jury testimony after entry of a nolle prosequi). However, the fact that Epstein passed away—which was the basis for the entry of the nolle prosequi—is a factor to be considered. See In re Craig, 131 F.3d 99, 106 (2d Cir. 1997) (noting that "the current status of the principals of the grand jury proceedings and that of their families" is a factor "that a trial court might want to consider when confronted with these highly discretionary and fact-sensitive 'special circumstances' motions"). Seventh, regarding the Government's approach to victim notification of the instant proceedings, as noted in its July 29 submission, the Government has provided notice of the unsealing motions to all but one of the victims who are referenced in the grand jury transcripts at issue in the motions. The Government still has been unable to contact that remaining victim. With respect to victims who are not identified in the grand jury transcripts but who have previously received victim notifications in the Maxwell and Epstein matters, the Government will over the coming days alert those victims to the fact of the unsealing motions. Finally, in light of the Government's ongoing efforts to ensure that that the interests of victims and other third parties are appropriately considered, as well as the multifaceted nature of these and other relevant proceedings, it may be necessary or appropriate for the Government to modify or supplement the information provided today, and the Government commits to doing so as promptly as practicable. As always, the Government is available to answer any questions the Court may have. Respectfully submitted, PAMELA J. BONDI United States Attorney General TODD BLANCHE Deputy United States Attorney General United States Department of Justice /s/ Jay Clayton JAY CLAYTON United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York 26 Federal Plaza 37th Floor New York, New York 10278 DOJ-OGR-00000764 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 70, 04/26/2023, 3505512, Page4 of 8 5. Maxwell's trial on Counts One through Six commenced on November 29, 2021 and ended on December 29, 2021, when Maxwell was convicted on Counts One and Three through Six, and acquitted on Count Two. 6. On June 29, 2022, Judge Nathan sentenced Maxwell principally to 60 months' imprisonment on Count Three, 120 months' imprisonment on Count Four, 240 months' imprisonment on Count Six, all to run concurrently, as well as a $750,000 fine. 7. Maxwell is serving her sentence. 8. On July 7, 2022, Maxwell filed a notice of appeal from the judgment of conviction. 9. On July 28, 2022, Maxwell requested an extended deadline for her opening brief of January 30, 2023 (instead of the ordinary 91-day deadline of October 14, 2022), which this Court granted on August 1, 2022. 10. On January 12, 2023, Maxwell filed an unopposed motion for an extension of time to file her opening brief from January 30, 2023, until February 28, 2023, which this Court granted on January 17, 2023. 11. On January 16, 2023, Maxwell filed a motion to file an oversized brief of no more than 20,000 words, which this Court granted on January 18, 2023. 12. On February 14, 2023, Maxwell filed a motion to file an oversized brief of no more than 35,000 words, which this Court denied on February 22, 2023. 3 DOJ-OGR-00021166 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 70, 04/26/2023, 3505512, Page5 of 8 13. On February 28, 2023, Maxwell filed her opening brief on appeal, which contains approximately 19,950 words. 14. Maxwell's brief raises at least five issues: (1) whether the indictment should have been dismissed pursuant to a nonprosecution agreement signed by Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida; (2) whether all counts were barred by the applicable statute of limitations; (3) whether a juror's misstatements during voir dire deprived Maxwell of her right to a fair and impartial jury; (4) whether the District Court constructively amended two counts of the indictment when responding to a jury note; and (5) whether the District Court improperly applied an aggravating role adjustment when calculating the applicable U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range. 15. As the foregoing summary reflects, there is factual and legal complexity in the issues raised by Maxwell, and the Government's responses to these arguments require in-depth factual and legal analysis. Although the Government is endeavoring to limit the size of its brief, a complete and useful response to Maxwell's brief cannot reasonably be accomplished in fewer than 20,000 words. 16. The Government is requesting the 30-day extension due to an unavoidable scheduling conflict. Specifically, I am the attorney with primary responsibility for drafting the Government response brief in this appeal. On April 18, 2023, trial for another matter in which I am counsel was scheduled to begin on 4 DOJ-OGR-00021167 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 70, 04/26/2023, 3505512, Page6 of 8 May 22, 2023. See United States v. Kenneth Wynder & Andrew Brown, 20 Cr. 470 (PKC) (S.D.N.Y.). Accordingly, in the remaining weeks prior to the current deadline for the Government's brief in this appeal, I will need to prepare for and conduct a trial in another matter. A 30-day extension will permit the Government to fulfill its obligations both to this Court and the district court by allowing the Government time to prepare its response to Maxwell's brief without interfering with the preparation for and conduct of the Wynder & Brown trial. As noted above, Maxwell sought and received permission to file her opening brief at the end of February, more than four months after it ordinarily would have been due under this Court's rules. Accordingly, the comparatively modest adjournment requested by the Government will not substantially prejudice Maxwell. 17. On April 19, 2023, the Government conferred by email with Diana Samson, Esq., counsel for Maxwell, and she reported that Maxwell would not oppose this motion if the Government also were to request that Maxwell receive an extension of time to file her reply brief from July 20, 2023, to July 27, 2023. Assuming the Government receives its requested extension to June 29, 2023, the Government consents to the requested extension of time to file Maxwell's reply brief to July 27, 2023. 18. For the foregoing reasons, the Government respectfully requests (1) leave to file an oversized brief of no more than 20,000 words, which is the --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 70, 04/26/2023, 3505512, Page7 of 8 approximate length of the brief to which it must respond in this appeal, and (2) an extension of time to file its brief until June 29, 2023, and, if that extension is granted, an extension of the time for Maxwell to file her reply brief until July 27, 2023. 19. I affirm under penalties of perjury, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: New York, New York April 26, 2023 Respectfully submitted, DAMIAN WILLIAMS United States Attorney By: Andrew A. Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorney Tel: (212) 637-2345 6 DOJ-OGR-00021169 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 70, 04/26/2023, 3505512, Page8 of 8 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(g), the undersigned counsel hereby certifies that this motion complies with the type-volume limitation of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. As measured by the word processing system used to prepare this motion, there are 1135 words in this motion. DAMIAN WILLIAMS United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York By: Andrew A. Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorney (212) 637-2345 7 DOJ-OGR-00021170