Epstein Secrets

n this in more detail. Maxwell Pre-Trial Mot. Nos. 4 8c 5. But the point is this: The defamation case should have been extremely narrow, but Boies Schiller transformed it into something much broader—a proxy prosecution of Epstein and Maxwell for allegedly trafficking and abusing Giuffre, which then comp

6 (2018). 2, 3 Doe v. Indyke, Case No., 20-cv-00484 (S.D.N.Y.) 6 Giuffre v. Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) 6 Matter of Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Feb. 18, 1988, 685 F. Supp. 49 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) 1 Raheem v. Kelly, 257 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2001) 9 Refco Grp. Ltd., LLC v. Cantor Fitzg

r than the subject of the subpoena, was the moving party). During the conference, the Government was not able to explain why it, rather than Boles Schiller, made the application. Boles Schiller is perfectly capable of protecting its own interests. The law firm's failure to seek for itself permission to

recipient of the subpoena, to have either (1) moved for relief from the Protective Order, or (2) moved to quash the subpoena. See In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991, 945 F.2d 1221, 1225 (2d Cir. 1991) ("The proper procedure ... is . . . to subpoena the deposition transcripts for use in

n this in more detail. Maxwell Pre-Trial Mot. Nos. 4 8c 5. But the point is this: The defamation case should have been extremely narrow, but Boies Schiller transformed it into something much broader—a proxy prosecution of Epstein and Maxwell for allegedly trafficking and abusing which then compelled Ma

S. Ct. 2206 (2018). 2$ Doe v. Indyke, Case No., 20-cv-00484 (S.D.N.Y.) 6 v. Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) 6 Matter of Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Feb. 18, 1988, 685 F. Supp. 49 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) 1 Raheem v. Kelly, 257 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2001) 9 Refco Grp. Ltd., LLC v. Cantor Fitzg

n this in more detail. Maxwell Pre-Trial Mot. Nos. 4 8c 5. But the point is this: The defamation case should have been extremely narrow, but Boies Schiller transformed it into something much broader—a proxy prosecution of Epstein and Maxwell for allegedly trafficking and abusing which then compelled Ma

S. Ct. 2206 (2018). 2$ Doe v. Indyke, Case No., 20-cv-00484 (S.D.N.Y.) 6 v. Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) 6 Matter of Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Feb. 18, 1988, 685 F. Supp. 49 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) 1 Raheem v. Kelly, 257 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2001) 9 Refco Grp. Ltd., LLC v. Cantor Fitzg

r 18, 2018. Shortly thereafter, in or about December or January 2018, the Government indicated to at I that it intended to make document requests. Schiller generally advised the Government that a protective order would govern some of the materials. (Id. at 3). In or about February 2019, approximately t

401 (2d Cir. 2004) 36, 43, 44 In re Grand Jucv Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991, 945 F.2d 1221 (2d Cir. 1991) 108, 113 In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Oct. 29, 1992, 1 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 1993) 140, 145 In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 826 F.2d 1166 (1987) 136 In re Grand Jury Subpoena,

ast, the Government accurately conveyed to Chief Judge McMahon the opening of its investigation in late 2018, the reason it made contact with Boies Schiller shortly thereafter and served a subpoena in February 2019, and that no documents governed by the protective order had yet been produced. Aside from

entitled to rely upon the enforceability of a protective order against any third parties, including the Government." Id.; see also In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991, 945 F.2d 1221, 1224-25 (2d Cir. 1991) ("The Martindell test [ ] does not transform a protective order into a grant of im

ast, the Government accurately conveyed to Chief Judge McMahon the opening of its investigation in late 2018, the reason it made contact with Boies Schiller shortly thereafter and served a subpoena in February 2019, and that no documents governed by the protective order had yet been produced. Aside from

entitled to rely upon the enforceability of a protective order against any third parties, including the Government." Id.; see also In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991, 945 F.2d 1221, 1224-25 (2d Cir. 1991) ("The Martindell test [ ] does not transform a protective order into a grant of im

bpoenas and Ex Pane Applications for Materials SOW- after opening t mment identified possible victims and their counsel trroiigh ich ina Boies Schiller. (Def. Mem. 3, Ex. E at 2-3). SDNY first cont oies Schiller about its investigation on or about December 18, 2018. Shortly thereafter, in oar Dec

States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988) 166 In re Enter. Mort. Acceptance Co. Sec. Litig. ("Enterprise"), 391 F.3d 401 (2d Cir. 2004) 27, In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991, 945 F.2d 1221 (2d Cir. 1991) In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Oct 29, 1992, 28, 77, 33 81 1 F.3d 87 (2d

t complying with any of the specific procedures or exceptions provided in the [confidentiality] orders." Id. Here, by contrast, ga on in late 0111 Schiller shortly the na in Februan Miran order, Aside from rank speculation loosely premised on an anonymously sourced news report, the defendant offers n

s the proper remedy.39 Indeed, none of the Second Circuit cases applying Martindell contemplate suppression as a remedy. See, e.g., In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991, 945 F.2d at 1224 (remanding for findings "on whether the protective order was improvidently granted or whether the gover

ast, the Government accurately conveyed to Chief Judge McMahon the opening of its investigation in late 2018, the reason it made contact with Boies Schiller shortly thereafter and served a subpoena in February 2019, and that no documents governed by the protective order had yet been produced. Aside from

entitled to rely upon the enforceability of a protective order against any third parties, including the Government." Id.; see also In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr 19, 1991, 945 F.2d 1221, 1224-25 (2d Cir. 1991) ("The Martindell test [ ] does not transform a protective order into a grant of imm