Epstein Secrets

Case 18-2868, Document 141, 03/15/2019, 2519388, Pagel of 27 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 Telephone: 212-85

rials, and (2) to hold in abeyance the Orders until the disposition of this Motion. EFTA00791870 Case 18-2868, Document 141, 03/15/2019, 2519388, Page3 of 27 Introduction The panel's Order to Show Cause and March 13 Order directing the appellees to produce the sealed and redacted summary judgment

e sealed and redacted information, not only will she be able to continue pursuing 3 EFTA00791872 Case 18-2868, Document 141, 03/15/2019, 2519388, Page5 of 27 publicity for profit, but also she will be able to engage in the prurient trafficking of others' private, personal and confidential informati

i Herald Media Company's (collectively, "Miami Herald") moved to make available to the public all sealed and redacted court filings. District Judge Sweet held a hearing in May 2018, and denied the motion in August 2018. In its appellate briefs the Herald did not argue the district court misconstrued

Case 20-2413. Document 10-1, 07/30/2020, 2896538, Pagel of 38 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 Telephone: MOTIO

ay Ty Gee Laura Menninger Adam Mueller Z1LLUI JW llyt/Gtialtt Llftt-1lLttliG EFTA00074904 Case 20-2413. Document 10-1, 07/30/2020, 2896538, Page3 of 38 Table of Contents Table of Authorities ii Table of Exhibits Introduction 1 Statement of the Case and the Facts 2 I. The defamation a

8. In part, Ms. Maxwell needed information concerning any such investigation to assess "the impact on any 5th Amendment privilege." Id. at 8. Judge Sweet denied that motion. The day before Ms. Maxwell's deposition, the Court ordered that "[a]ny materials that the plaintiff has with respect to any cri

Case 20-2413, Document 44, 08/20/2020, 2913556, Pagel of 78 20-2413 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit —against— GHISLAINE MAXWELL, SHARON CHURCHER, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, PlaintiffiAp

HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. Attorneys or e en ant-Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell EFTA00076383 Case 20-2413, Document 44, 08/20/2020, 2913556, Paget of 78 Docket Entries App.-0001 Order regarding Ms. Maxwell's Letter Motion to Reconsider July 23, 2020 Ruling, Dated July 29, 2020 (Dkt. 1079) A

ant to the Court's exercise of its inherent supervisory powers. The documents at issue here relate to discovery motions previously decided by Judge Sweet, and so the Court SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA00076444 Case 20-2413, Document 44, 08/20/2020, 2913556, Page63 of 78 3

Epstein Case No.: 17 civ. 00616 MESSAGE: Please see attached # OF PAGES 4 (including cover sheet) IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE THE DESIGNATED NUMBER OF PAGES, OR IF YOU EXPERIENCE ANY PROBLEM WITH THE TRANSMISSION OF THIS DOCUMENT, PLEASE CALL 954-524-2820. THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF T

hat the Court deny the request for leave to file any motion regarding the protective order, as any such motion would be properly addressed to Judge Sweet—the Judge who entered the order in the first instance. Jane Doe 43 furthers requests that the Court deny the requested stay of briefmg on the Motion

Case 20-2413, Document 10-9, 07/30/2020, 2896538, Paget of 17 K7N9GIUD 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF COURT NEW YORK x Plaintiff, 5 v. 15 CV 7433 (LAP) 6 Remote Zoom Co

ant to the Court's exercise of its inherent supervisory powers. The documents at issue here relate to discovery motions previously decided by Judge Sweet, and so the Court SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00074942 Case 20-2413, Document 10-9,07/30/2020, 2896538, Page3 of 17 K7N9GIUD 4 5 6

Case 20-2413. Document 40. 08'20/2020. 2913550, Pagel of 74 20-2413 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Plaintlff-Appelke, —against— GHISLA1NE MAXWELL, Defendant-Appellant, SHARO

ons took place only after everyone agreed on the record that the testimony would be confidential and sealed pursuant to the Protective Order. Judge Sweet made factual findings on exactly this point, which this Court never questioned in Brown.M325 F. Supp. 3d at 445, 446 (recognizing that Ms. Maxwell

Ces2e.29-12,407413r3cliAlienDtidutinEl t310282 if663615/233/2174ig Plage aoat 9 HADDON MORGAN FOREMAN July 29, 2020 Honorable Loretta A. Preska United States District Court Southern District of New York 500 Pearl S

n part, Ms. Maxwell needed information concerning any such investigation to assess "the impact on any 5th Amendment privilege." Id. at 2, 4-5. Judge Sweet denied that motion. The day before Ms. Maxwell's deposition, the Court ordered that "[a]ny materials that the plaintiff has with respect to any cri