Epstein Secrets

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

wn v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2019) passim Dubose v. Pierce, 487 U.S. 1229 (1988) 15 Dubose v. Pierce, 761 F.2d 913 (2d Cir. 1985) 15 Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2004) 16 Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770 (1987) 13 Hunt v. Enzo Biochem, Inc., 904 F. Supp. 2d 337 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)

686 , To Be Filed Under Seal statutory and common law privacy concerns. (Dkt. No. 38 at 1.) Maxwell submitted a proposed form of order for Judge Sweet's consideration. (Dkt. No. 39-1.) Giuffre represented that she "[did] not oppose the entrance [sic] of a Protective Order in this case, but [did] o

tive order is a decision committed to the sound discretion of the trial court." TheStreet Com, 273 F.3d at 231 (internal quotation omitted); accord Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 142 n.7 (2d Cir. 2004) ("If reliance would be unreasonable, it is within the discretion of the court to vacate or modify a protectiv

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

a July 29, 2020 Page 2 courts have recognized, temporary stays of unseal orders are appropriate so that "[t]he genie is [not] out of the bottle," Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 144 (2d Cir. 2004), before the interested parties have an opportunity to seek review of the orders. See, e.g., United Staten. Martom