LAW orFucts
SCOTT A. SREBNICK, P.A.
SCOTT A. SREBNICK' 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard
, ALSO ADMITTED IN NEW YORK Salle 1210
Miami, Florida 33131
December 2, 2019 Tel 305-285-9019
Far 305-377-9937
sco0€'srcbnicklawcom
write subakklatecom
United States Attorney's Office
Southern District of New York
One Saint Andrew's Plaza
New York, NY 10007
Re: United States v. Michael Avenatti
Case No. Si 19 Cr 373 (PGG)
Gentlemen:
On behalf of Mr. Avenatti, we make the request below pursuant to Rule 16(a)(1)(EXi) and
the government's obligations under the Due Process Clause, Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83
(1963), Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), and their progeny. This request is meant to
direct the government's attention to specific evidence. It is not intended to be a substitute for
general categories of evidence that the government is otherwise required to produce under the Due
Process Clause and the above authorities (e.g., plea agreements, deferred prosecution agreements,
non-prosecution agreements, promises and benefits to witnesses, threatened charges against
witnesses, etc.), all of which we request as well.
On Saturday, November 30, 2019, the New York Times ("Times") published an
investigative report entitled "Jeffrey Epstein, Blackmail, and a Lucrative 'Hot List'." See
httns://www.nvtimes.com/2019/11/30/business/david-boies-pottinger-ieffrev -eostein-
videos.html. The Times reported about an agreement between David Boies, the founder of the
Boies Schiller Flexner ("BSF") law firm and its Chairman and Managing Partner since 1997, and
attorney John Stanley Pottinger, to purchase what they believed to be videos secretly made by
Jeffrey Epstein of famous wealthy men engaged in sexual activities with different women at
Epstein's residence. The videos were supposedly in the possession of a man who identified himself
to Boies as Patrick Kessler. Because the videos were purportedly made at Epstein's direction,
Boles and Pottinger undoubtedly believed that at least some of the videos constituted evidence of
serious criminal sex offenses targeting minors. The Times's reporting suggests that Boies and
Pottinger were plotting to use the videos to secure multi-million-dollar payoffs from these wealthy
men in exchange for confidentiality (i.e., concealing the videos from law enforcement and the
public), in part by entering into agreements to be retained by the actual alleged abusers. The
evidence further suggests that Boies had no idea whether any of his current clients (alleged Epstein
victims) were depicted in the videos, but that did not matter to Boies because, as the Times
EFTA00032751
suggests, even in the absence of clients, Boies and Pottinger were planning to utilize the illicit
videos to obtain multi-million-dollar settlements from the wealthy men.
This conduct was the subject of Episode 22 of The Weekly, a television series of the Times,
which airs on FX and Hulu. Episode 22, which aired a few days ago, included interviews of Boies
and Pottinger. See httos://www.nvtimes.com/2019/11/29/the-weekly/ieffrev-eostein-secret-
videos.html. The interviews confirmed that the purpose of the plan was to get these wealthy men
to pay money in exchange for what Boies described in his interview as "peace." The "peace"
meant burying evidence of criminal conduct from the public (and presumably law enforcement).
As described, Mr. Boies's conduct amounts to conspiracy to commit extortion, as
interpreted by the USAO-SDNY. In furtherance thereof(i.e., one of several overt acts), Boies and
Pottinger sought to enlist the assistance of the press as part of their scheme and invited reporters
from the Times to meet Kessler at the BSF office in Manhattan. According to the Times, "[tjhe
threat of [a) major news organization writing about the videos - and confirming the existence of
an extensive surveillance apparatus — could greatly enhance the lawyers' leverage over the wealthy
men." The conduct, as described, would appear to also violate other criminal statutes, including
18 U.S.C. §§2252 and 2252A. Venue for this conduct plainly exists in the Southern District of
New York.
As you know, BSF lawyers were the ones who reported Mr. Avenatti's alleged scheme to
extort Nike to federal law enforcement and the USAO-SDNY. Based on our prior conversations
with you, it is clear that one or more BSF lawyers will be witnesses at Mr. Avenatti's trial.
Evidence that their boss and law partner David Boies may have engaged in the above-described
conduct — and could potentially be prosecuted by the USAO-SDNY — is highly relevant to the
motives of the testifying BSF lawyers to curry favor with the government. After all, Boies is
known to be a chief rainmaker at the BSF firm and his reputation has been essential to the success
of BSF. Indeed, if Boies were indicted for this conduct, the partners at BSF would surely suffer a
substantial financial impact.
Accordingly, we demand any evidence in the possession of the USAO-SDNY
pertaining to David Boies's conduct as described in the Times report and Episode 22 of The
Weekly. We further demand disclosure of whether Boies or any other members of his law
firm are under federal investigation for the conduct described in the Times report and The
Weekly. And if not, why not?
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Respectfully,
SCOTT A. SREBNICK
JOSE M. QUINON
EFTA00032752