Epstein Secrets

o use them for purposes of sexual massages? MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the form and foundation. A. Can yo

ssued a "subpoena for the production of documents as part of an ongoing investigation." (Id. at 25). In support of her argument, the defendant cites Palmieri where the Second Circuit, applying Martindell, reversed the district court's decision granting the state Attorney General's motion to intervene to

er the protective order was improvidently granted or whether the government had made a showing of exceptional circumstances or a compelling need"); Palmieri, 779 F.2d at 862 (reversing district court's modification of protective orders where district court did not make an "express finding" of improvidenc

allows a protective order to be overcome by a showing of improvidence in the grant of the order, extraordinary circumstances or compelling need."); Palmieri v. State of N.Y., 779 F.2d 861, 862 (2d Cir. 1985) (holding that "absent an express finding by the district court of improvidence in the magistrate's initial

o use them for purposes of sexual massages? MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the form and foundation. A. Can yo

er the protective order was improvidently granted or whether the government had made a showing of exceptional circumstances or a compelling need"); Palmieri, 779 F.2d at 862 (reversing district court's modification of protective orders where district court did not make an "express finding" of improvidenc

allows a protective order to be overcome by a showing of improvidence in the grant of the order, extraordinary circumstances or compelling need."); Palmieri v. State of N.Y., 779 F.2d 861, 862 (2d Cir. 1985) (holding that "absent an express finding by the district court of improvidence in the magistrate's initial

ssued a "subpoena for the production of documents as part of an ongoing investigation." (Id. at 25). In support of her argument, the defendant cites Palmieri where the Second Circuit, applying Martindell, reversed the district court's decision granting the state Attorney General's motion to intervene to

o use them for purposes of sexual massages? MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the form and foundation. 123 EFTA

er the protective order was improvidently granted or whether the government had made a showing of exceptional circumstances or a compelling need"); Palmieri, 779 F.2d at 862 (reversing district court's modification of protective orders where district court did not make an "express finding" of improvidenc

allows a protective order to be overcome by a showing of improvidence in the grant of the order, extraordinary circumstances or compelling need."); Palmieri v. State of N. Y., 779 F.2d 861, 862 (2d Cir. 1985) (holding that "absent an express finding by the district court of improvidence in the magistrate's initi

grand jury that had issued a alliena for the production of documents as parl'of an ongoing ation5). In support of her argument, the defendant cites Palmieri where the Second Circuit, applying Martindell, reversed the district court's decision granting the state Attorney General's motion to intervene to

o use them for purposes of sexual massages? MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the form and foundation. A. Can yo

er the protective order was improvidently granted or whether the government had made a showing of exceptional circumstances or a compelling need"); Palmieri, 779 F.2d at 862 (reversing district court's modification of protective orders where district court did not make an "express finding" of improvidenc

allows a protective order to be overcome by a showing of improvidence in the grant of the order, extraordinary circumstances or compelling need."); Palmieri v. State of N.Y., 779 F.2d 861, 862 (2d Cir. 1985) (holding that "absent an express finding by the district court of improvidence in the magistrate's initial

ssued a "subpoena for the production of documents as part of an ongoing investigation." (Id. at 25). In support of her argument, the defendant cites Palmieri where the Second Circuit, applying Martindell, reversed the district court's decision granting the state Attorney General's motion to intervene to

o use them for purposes of sexual massages? MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the form and foundation. A. Can yo

allows a protective order to be overcome by a showing of improvidence in the grant of the order, extraordinary circumstances or compelling need."); Palmieri v. State of N.Y., 779 F.2d 861, 862 (2d Cir. 1985) (holding that "absent an express finding by the district court of improvidence in the magistrate's initial

Parties' reliance."). 79 EFTA00100046 cau PPIal (Id. washy a granrad issulaubeaurnalMI an In support of her argument, the defendant cites Palmieri where the Second Circuit, applying Martind ell, reversed the district court's decision granting the state Attorney General's motion to intervene to

her the protective order was improvidently granted or whether the government had made a showing of exceptionalcircumstances or a compelling need"); Palmieri, 779 F.2d at 862 (reversing district court's modification o fprotective orders where district court did not make an "express finding" of improvidenc

MAXWELL, Defendant. poe nen nee nee eee eee eee xX Defendant’s Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Omnibus Motion in Limine Laura A. Menninger Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Ty Gee HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10" Avenue Denver, CO 80203 303.831.7364 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011463 --- PAGE BREAK --- TABLE OF C

enseaecneaesaeaesaeseesseneeseeaeens 12 O’Brien v. Alexander, 898 F.Supp. 162, 171 (S.D.N-Y. 1995) ooo. eesceseeceseerseeseeeseeereeeseeneeeeseees 30 Palmieri v. Defaria, 88 F.3d 136, 141 (2d Cir. 1996) oo... eee esseeecsseesseeneeceseeseeeseeeseeenseesseeseeesseees 33 People v Thomas, 21 N.Y .3d 226 (2013)

33-RWS GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. wen ee eee xX Defendant’s Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Omnibus Motion in Limine Laura A. Menninger Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Ty Gee HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10" Avenue Denver, CO 80203 303.831.7364 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014788 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:15-

esseeseeaeeceessessecaeeeeseeeseeseenes 12 O’Brien v. Alexander, 898 F.Supp. 162, 171 (S.D.N-Y. 1995) .oo.cecccececeeeeeeeeetecneeeeeeeeeeeeneenes 30 Palmieri v. Defaria, 88 F.3d 136, 141 (2d Cir. 1996) oo. coccccccccccccescesteesecseeeseenteesssesteesieenaees 33 People v Thomas, 21 N.Y .3d 226 (2013).....c

NDMENT, MARTINDELL, AND THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO SUPPRE ALL EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S SUBPOENA T AND TO DISMISS COUNTS FIVE AND SIX Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger HADDON MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C. Denver, CO 80203 Mark S. Cohen Christian R. Everdell COHEN & GRESSER LLP Bobbi C. Sternheim A

(9th Cir. 2016) 4, 5, 11 Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) 2, 6 Murphy v. Waterfront Comm 'n of New York Harbor, 378 U.S. 52 (1964) 2 Palmieri v. State of New York, 779 F.2d 861 (2d Cir. 1985) 14 People v. Gutierrez, 222 P.3d 925 (Cob. 2009) 10 People v. Mason, 989 P.2d 757 (Colo. 1999