Court records
- Format
- Set
- Court Records
- Text
- Searchable
Text as released
Machine-read from the scan. Names, dates and numbers can be misread — check anything you rely on against the original page.
Case 1:17-mc-00025-RWS Document 33 Filed 03/13/17 Page 1 of 11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
BRADLEY J. EDWARDS
BRADLEY J. EDWARDS’S REPLY IN
Plaintiff, SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH
SUBPOENA OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
v. FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
No. 1:17-mc-00025-RWS
Defendant.
Subpoena respondent Bradley J. Edwards, a non-party and attorney for the Plaintiff in the
Giuffre v. Maxwell action, hereby files this supplemental reply in support of his motion to
quash.1
BACKGROUND
As the Court recalls, Defendant served subpoenas for documents on two of Ms. Giuffre’s
lawyers: Paul G. Cassell, Esq., and Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. The subpoenas were overlapping in
most respects and largely substantively indistinguishable. This Court has previously ruled on a
motion to quash the Cassell subpoena, quashing most of the demands made there. With regard to
the overlapping Edwards subpoena, defense counsel has agreed that “the majority of this has
been disposed of by [the Court’s] earlier opinion” on the Cassell subpoena. Hearing Tr. Mar. 9,
2017, at 57:16-17.
1
The motion to quash RFPs #19 and #20 (and all other RFPs) should be denied for reasons explained
earlier in Mr. Edwards’ Motion to Quash and Reply in Support of His Motion to Quash, which documents
are incorporated by reference into this reply as if set forth verbatim.
Case 1:17-mc-00025-RWS Document 33 Filed 03/13/17 Page 2 of 11
Two of the demands made in the Edwards subpoena that were not overlapping were
Edwards Request for Produc
[…]