COHEN & GRESSER LLP

COHEN & GRESSER LLP (.11nquan R I November 15, 2021 BY FIRST CLASS MAIL Mr. Kenneth A. Polite, Jr. Assistant Attorney General Criminal Division U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Dear Assistant Attorney General Polite: We represent the defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell, in the above-referenced matter. This letter constitutes a request made pursuant to Unite ouhy v. Regan, 340 U.S. 462 (1951), for the testimon of 1 FBI S ial Agent and (2) former Assistant United States Attorney at the trial in this case on November 29, 2019 at 9:00 A.M., before the Honorable Alison J. Nathan, United States District Judge. In accordance with 28 C.F.R. § 16.23(c), we make the following statement setting forth a summary of the testimony we seek: SAnas co-case agent in charge of an investigation into allegations of sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein conducted by the Palm Beach FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida from approximately July 2006 to June 2008 (the "Florida Investigation"). During the course of the Florida Investigation, SA was present for numerous interviews of witnesses who alleged that they were sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein, including at least one witness who is anticipated to testify against Ms. Maxwell at the trial in the above- captioned case the The interview of the Witness took place on August 7, 2007. SA took contemporaneous notes of the interview and summarized ' • an FBI 302, dated August 13, 2007. The government has produced S notes and the FBI 302 to the defense as part of the criminal discovery in this case. In the event that the Witness's testimony at trial is inconsistent with the statements she made at the August 7, 2007 interview, the defense would seek to call SA to impeach the Witness. is a former Assistant United States Attorney in the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York ("USAO-SDNY"), who is 2051279.1 EFTA00076294 U.S. Department of Justice November 15, 2021 Page 2 now in private practice.' In her capacity as the Human Trafficking and Project Safe Childhood Coordinator for the USAO-SDNY, met with attorneys for several of the alleged victims who are testifying against Ms. Maxwell in this case on February 29, 2016 ting, the attorneys for the alleged victims attempted to persuad to open an investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and Ms. Maxwell and discussed how a previous investigation into Mr. Epstein by the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida had been resolved by a Non-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA"). took contemporaneous notes of that meeting and soon afterwar s ernaded the Chief of the Criminal Division of the USAO-SDNY to discuss the case. The USAO-SDNY did not open an investigation at that time. In late-November 2018, read an article in the Miami Herald which was extremely critical of the Epstein NPA and highlighted the extent f Mr. E tin's alleged crimes. Shortly after reading the Miami Herald article, approached prosecutors in the Public Corruption Unit of the U - including several of the prosecutors on this case, and told them about the February 29, 2016 meeting. also provided the prosecutors with her notes of the meeting and other documents in her file. Shortly after that, the USAO-SDNY opened an investigation into Epstein that ultimately led to the indictment against Ms. Maxwell. The overnment has produced to the defense in discovery, among other things. notes of the February 29, 2016 meeting, emails betwee an the prosecutors from the Public Corruption Unit in November-December 2018 and the prosecution team's notes of a February 11, 2021 phone call with in which she discusses her recollection of the February 29, 2016 meeting and her interactions with the prosecutors in November-December 2018. In the event that Judge Nathan permits the defense to elicit testimony at trial about the February 29, 2016 meeting an' ubsequent interactions with the prosecutors on this case in November-December 2018, the defense would seek to call to testify about those topics. The testimony of SA is relevant and material to the issues in this case. Furthermore, it is Ms. Maxwell's position that the disclosure is appropriate under rules of I Although Ms. Kramer is no longer an employee for the Department of Justice, the Department's Touhy regulations apply to "any information acquired by any person while such person was an employee of the Department as a part of the performance of that person's official duties or because of that person's official status." 28 C.F.R. § 16.21(a); see also Justice Manual, Section 1-6.111 (included in the definition of "employee" are "former Department employees in cases in which the subpoena or demand seeks testimony as to information acquired while the person was employed by the Department"). 2051279.1 EFTA00076295 U.S. Department of Justice November 15, 2021 Page 3 procedure and that disclosure, to Ms. Maxwell's knowledge, would not violate any statute or regulations or reveal confidential sources, classified information, trade secrets, ongoing investigations, or investigatory techniques. (28 C.F.R. § 16.26(b)). me. If you have any questions or would like to discuss further, please do not hesitate to contact Sincerely, Is/ Christian R. Everdell Christian R. Everdell COHEN & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor New York New York 10022 cc: All counsel of record (by email) 2051279.1 EFTA00076296