Epstein Secrets

thereo is fore the Court. Attorneys and Law Firms *566 Sigrid S. McCawley, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Fort Lauderdale, FL, Joshua Schiller, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff. Arthur Louis Aidala, Law Offices of Aidala & Bertuna, P.C., Brooklyn, NY, Christian Kiely, Howard M. Coo

. Court ex rel. County of Clark, 118 Nev. 140, 42 P.3d 233, 239 (2002). In a case related to this one, the Court's dear departed colleague, Judge Robert W. Sweet, held that because the qualified privilege of reply is an affirmative defense that a plaintiff has a right to rebut, it is not appropriate for res

it A. Background As described in the Application, the Government has served a grand jury subpoena (the "Subpoena") upon Boies Schiller & Flexner ("Boies Schiller") requiring the production of copies of discovery and related materials related to the Litigation. The Subpoena was validly issued pursuant to an o

The Silvio J. Mono Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 February 28, 2019 TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL VIA EMAIL The Honorable Robert W. Sweet United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse New York, New York 10007 Re: In re Application to Unseal Ci

it A. Background As described in the Application, the Government has served a grand jury subpoena (the "Subpoena") upon Boies Schiller & Flexner ("Boies Schiller") requiring the production of copies of discovery and related materials related to the Litigation. The Subpoena was validly issued pursuant to an o

The Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 February 28, 2019 TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL VIA EMAIL The Honorable Robert W. Sweet United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse New York, New York 10007 Re: In re Application to Unseal Ci

had obtained access to the materials because retained them "both to represent her in [ v. Dershowitz] and to represent her in conjunction with the Boies Schiller firm in the Maxwell case." (Transcript at 9:15-19.) The Court is not privy to the full details of arrangement with Cooper & Kirk, but, in any even

s of the Maxwell protective order. 1. The Maxwell Protective Order At the heart of the dispute is the protective order entered in Maxwell by Judge Robert W. Sweet. (See Protective Order (the "Maxwell Protective Order"), dated March 17, 2016 [dkt. no. 62 in 15 Civ. 7433].)2 1 (See tesponse to Dershowitz Lette

it A. Background As described in the Application, the Government has served a grand jury subpoena (the "Subpoena") upon Boies Schiller & Flexner ("Boies Schiller") requiring the production of copies of discovery and related materials related to the Litigation. The Subpoena was validly issued pursuant to an o

The Silvio J. Mediu Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 February 28, 2019 TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL VIA EMAIL The Honorable Robert W. Sweet United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse New York, New York 10007 Re: In re Application to Unseal Ci

The defendant's motion is, at its core, premised on a false factual narrative. The defendant alleges, based on a New York Daily News article, that Boies Schiller and the Government colluded 60 EFTA00095152 starting in at least early 2016 with the "precise[] design[]" of having the defendant "charged with

moved for an entry of a protective order for materials produced in discovery and submitted a proposed order for the consideration of the Honorable Robert W. Sweet, the United States District Judge who was then overseeing the Giu&•e v. Maxwell civil litigation. (See 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP), Dkt. Nos. 38 & 39-1). On