Epstein Secrets

lings regarding those matters, including the discovery materials referenced in the Defense Letter, remain sealed? As the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York has stated publicly, the investigation into the conduct of the defendant in this case and other possible co-conspirators of Jeffrey Epstein remains

g the relative lack of specific guidance in the context of an application to modify protective orders in criminal cases), see also United States v. Morales, 807 F.3d 717, 721 (5th Cir. 2015) ("[m]otions to modify protective orders in criminal cases appear to be infrequent"), decisions that do exist have

LC), Apr. 13, 2017) 24 Martindell v. Intl Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979) 18, 21 McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (1943) 20 Morales v. Portuondo, 165 F. Supp. 2d 601 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) 24 Rea v. United States, 350 U.S. 214 (1956) 20 United States v. Bout, 731 F.3d 233 (2d Cir. 20

on first began. None of these statements by AUSA to Judge McMahon were true. As described above, attorneys pressed the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York to investigate and prosecute Epstein and Maxwell. Ex. J. Then, two months after the meeting with AUSA attorneys told Judge Sweet—who was presiding

C), Apr. 13, 2017) 24 Martindell v. Intl Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979) 18, 21 McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (1943) 20 Morales v. Portuondo, 165 F. Supp. 2d 601 2001) 24 Rea v. United States, 350 U.S. 214 (1956) 20 United States v. Bout, 731 F.3d 233 (2d Cir. 2013) 23

on first began. None of these statements by AUSA to Judge McMahon were true. As described above, attorneys pressed the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York to investigate and prosecute Epstein and Maxwell. Ex. J. Then, two months after the meeting with AUSA attorneys told Judge Sweet—who was presiding

the FBI submitted a revised declaration from Maureen Comey, an Assistant United States Attorney ("AUSA") in the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. (Third Comey Decl. (Dkt. No. 59)1 1), and a revised declaration from Michael G. Seidel, the Section Chief of the Record/Information Dissemination

GG Document 64 Filed 06/25/24 Page 7 of 20 "The same standard[s] appl[y] where, as here, the parties file[] cross-motions for summary judgment...." Morales v. Ouintel Entm't. Inc., 249 F.3d 115, 121 (2d Cir. 2001). "[W]hen both parties move for summary judgment, asserting the absence of any genuine issu