Epstein Secrets

he trial of four of President Nixon's former advisors. The media intended to copy the tapes for broadcasting and sale to the public. District Judge Sirica denied the motion, principally on the ground that the rights of the four defendants, who had been convicted and had filed notices of appeal, would b

www.hmllaw.com [email protected] Re: Reconsideration of the Court's July 23 Ruling Giuffie v. Ghislaine Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP) Dear Judge Preska: As counsel for Ms. Maxwell we write to request that the Court vindicate its Protective Order and punish its violation. Ms. Maxwell's two depositio

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 Street New York, NY 10007 Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P C Ty Gee 150 East

he trial of four of President Nixon's former advisors. The media intended to copy the tapes for broadcasting and sale to the public. District Judge Sirica denied the motion, principally on the ground that the rights of the four defendants, who had been convicted and had filed notices of appeal, would

order unsealing the deposition material, including Ms. Maxwell's April 2016 deposition transcript. On July 23, over Ms. Maxwell's objection, Judge Preska —who is presiding over the civil case and the litigation about the unsealing of the district court filings —ordered the complete unsealing of Ms. M

CM/ECF, which will send notification of the filing to all counsel of record. I also certify that I mailed a copy of the opening brief to: The Hon. Loretta A. Preska District Judge United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (via United States mail) s/ Nicole Simmons 43 EFTA00075525

he trial of four of President Nixon's former advisors. The media intended to copy the tapes for broadcasting and sale to the public. District Judge Sirica denied the motion, principally on the ground that the rights of the four defendants, who had been convicted and had filed notices of appeal, would b

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1078 Filed 07/29/20 Page 1 of 9 HADDON MORGAN FOREMAN July 29, 2020 Honorable Loretta A. Preska United States District Court Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, r.0 Ty Gee 150 East

www.hmtlaw.com [email protected] Re: Reconsideration of the Court's July 23 Ruling Giuffie v. Ghislaine Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP) Dear Judge Preska: As counsel for Ms. Maxwell we write to request that the Court vindicate its Protective Order and punish its violation. Ms. Maxwell's two depositio

he trial of four of President Nixon's former advisors. The media intended to copy the tapes for broadcasting and sale to the public. District Judge Sirica denied the motion, principally on the ground that the rights of the four defendants, who had been convicted and had filed notices of 18 EFTA000749

-mail) Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C. Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP OPPOSING ATTORNEY: Sigrid McCawley Court- Judge/ Agency appealed from: Hon. Loretta A. Preska, District Judge (S.D.N.Y.) Please check appropriate boxes: Has movant notifiedr oposing counsel (required by Local Rule 27.1): lElYes I [No (expla

Case 1 15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1078 Filed 07/29/20 Page 1 of 9 HADDON MORGAN FOREMAN July 29, 2020 Honorable Loretta A. Preska United States District Court Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.0 Ty Gee 150 East

www.hmtlaw.com tgeefghmflaw.com Re: Reconsideration of the Court's July 23 Ruling Giuffre v. Ghislaine Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP) Dear Judge Preska: As counsel for Ms. Maxwell we write to request that the Court vindicate its Protective Order and punish its violation. Ms. Maxwell's two depositio

he trial of four of President Nixon's former advisors. The media intended to copy the tapes for broadcasting and sale to the public. District Judge Sirica denied the motion, principally on the ground that the rights of the four defendants, who had been convicted and had filed notices of appeal, would b