Epstein Secrets

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

.D.N.Y. 1973) 73 United States v. Dorvee, 616 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2010) 236 United States v. Drago, No. 18 Cr. 0394 (SJF) (AYS), 2019 WL 3072288 (E.D.N.Y. July 15, 2019) 86 United States v. Dumitru, No. 18 Cr. 243 (LAK), 2018 WL 3407703 (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2018) 261 United States v. Eldred, 933 F.3

bit 3: Exhibit 4: Exhibit 5: Exhibit 6: Exhibit 7: Exhibit 8: Exhibit 9: Exhibit 10: Exhibit 11: Exhibit 12: Notes from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York June 14, 2007 Email November 2020 Report, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility Notes from February 11, 2021 Call Note

ase The defendant seeks to dismiss the Indictment based on a 2007 non-prosecution agreement ("NPA") between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (the "USAO-SDFL"). (Def. Mot. 1). She does so despite the fact that: (1) she did not negotiate the NPA, was not a party to the NPA, and

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

WL 5090039 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2014) 83 2016 WL 107841 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 11, 2016) 18, 19 2016 WL 1055737 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2016) 2019 WL 3072288 (E.D.N.Y. July 15, 2019) 2020 WL 3483702 (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2020) 2021 WL 78235 (January 11, 2021) Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266 (1993) Andover Data Se

ase The defendant seeks to dismiss the Indictment based on a 2007 non-prosecution agreement ("NPA") between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (the "USAO-SDFL"). She does so despite the fact that: (1) she did not negotiate the NPA, was not a party to the NPA, and her name is not

fight with Epstein's alleged victims long before her recent arrest. "(Maxwell] has been using this Court as a sword and a shield for many years." Schiller wrote in a filing earlier this year, "and she, Jeffrey Epstein, and their other co-conspirators have attempted to thwart their victims from obtaini

the public interests and the duty of the courts," Nixon, 435 U.S. at 602. See United States v. Cicale, No. 05-CR-60-2 (NGG), 2018 WL 388941, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2018) ("Compelling interests warranting closure of a courtroom—and, by extension, sealing of court documents— `may include the defendant's

elitheffffefilagtegtataf 8 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan July 21, 2020 Page 7 Respectfully Submitted, Jeffrey S. Pagliuca cc: U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York Mark Cohen Christian Everdell Cohen & Gresser LLP Laura A. Menninger Haddon, Morgan & Foreman, P.C. EFTA00075071 Cagesle120o140ZaUX.PertDo&Af

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

ranceX.com, Inc., No. 06-cv-2225, 2010 WL 11606632, at *4 14 CONFIDENTIAL SDNY_GM_00000888 EFTA 00114972 EFTA01263259 To Be Filed Under Seal (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2010) (order was not improvidently granted where "parties were concerned about exchanging commercially sensitive material with their direct

ess-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984) 10 Savitt v. Vacco, No. 95-CV-1842(RSP/DRH), 1996 WL 663888 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 1996) 7 Schiller v. City of New York, No. 04 CIV. 792I(ICMK), 2006 WL 2788256 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2006) 7, 12 Sec. and Exch. Conun'n v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 22

35 U.S. 589 (1978) 10 Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984) 10 Savitt v. Vacco, No. 95-CV-1842(RSP/DRH), 1996 WL 663888 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 1996) 7 Schiller v. City of New York, No. 04 CIV. 792I(ICMK), 2006 WL 2788256 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2006) 7, 12 Sec. and Exch. Conun'n v.

t. 28, 1997) 15 iv EFTA00728012 Salvatorie Studios. Int'l v. Mako's. Inc., No. 01 Civ. 4430BSIDF. 2001 WL 913945 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 1991) 11 Schiller v. City of New York 2 245 F.R.D. 112 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) Solarex Corp. v. Arco Solar. Inc., 4 121 F.R.D. 163 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) Ulrich v. Coast Dental

Stillman. Inc. v. Globe Newspaper Co. 633 F.2d 583 (1st Cir. 1980) 4, 5 Cablevision Systems Corp. v. DePalma, No. CV-87-3528 (JLC), 1989 WL 8165 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 17. 1989) 7 Chick-Fil-A. Inc. v. CFT Dev.. LLC 652 F. Supp. 2d 1252 (M.D. Fla. 2009) 12 Cooper Industries. Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group. I

t. 28, 1997) 15 iv EFTA00207335 Salvatorie Studios. Int'l v. Mako's. Inc., No. 01 Civ. 4430BSIDF. 2001 WL 913945 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 1991) 11 Schiller v. City of New York 2 245 F.R.D. 112 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) Solarex Corp. v. Arco Solar. Inc., 4 121 F.R.D. 163 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) Ulrich v. Coast Dental

Stillman. Inc. v. Globe Newspaper Co. 633 F.2d 583 (1st Cir. 1980) 4, 5 Cablevision Systems Corp. v. DePalma, No. CV-87-3528 (JLC), 1989 WL 8165 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 17. 1989) 7 Chick-Fil-A. Inc. v. CFT Dev.. LLC 652 F. Supp. 2d 1252 (M.D. Fla. 2009) 12 Cooper Industries. Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group. I

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

er for "distinct criminal acts where they originated from a common scheme." United States v. Ying Lin, No. 15 Cr. 601 (DLI), 2018 WL 5113139, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2018) (citing Werner, 620 F.2d at 927). Specifically in the context of perjury, "[t]he law in this circuit clearly supports the joinder of

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

er for "distinct criminal acts where they originated from a common scheme." United States v. Ying Lin, No. 15 Cr. 601 (DLI), 2018 WL 5113139, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2018) (citing Werner, 620 F.2d at 927). Specifically in the context of perjury, "[t]he law in this circuit clearly supports the joinder of

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

er for "distinct criminal acts where they originated from a common scheme." United States v. Ying Lin, No. 15 Cr. 601 (DLI), 2018 WL 5113139, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2018) (citing Werner, 620 F.2d at 927). Specifically in the context of perjury, "Nile law in this circuit clearly supports the joinder of