Epstein Secrets

4 This Court has jurisdiction over the order to unseal under the collateral order doctrine. Brown, 929 F.3d at 54; see United States v. Erie Cty., N. Y., 763 F.3d 235, 238 n.5 (2d Cir. 2014); United States a Graham, 257 F.3d 143,147-48 (2d Cir. 2001). 12 EFTA00074921 Case 20-2413, Document 10-1,

7) 13 Statutes All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) 27 Other Authorities U.S. CONST. amend. V 18, 27 U.S. CONST. amend. VI 18, 27 Rules Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)(2) 13 FED. R. Evm. 401 28 FED. R. EVID. 402 28 FED. R. EVID. 403 28 FED. R. Evm. 404(b) 28 iv EFTA00074908 Case 20-2413, Docume

rder to be overcome by a showing of improvidence in the grant of the order, extraordinary circumstances or compelling need."); Palmieri v. State of N. Y., 779 F.2d 861, 862 (2d Cir. 1985) (holding that "absent an express finding by the district court of improvidence in the magistrate's initial grant

were produced to the defense on or about August 12, 2020. As a result, Maxwell could have sought review of order in the Second Circuit. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). Maxwell asks this Court to second-guess a coequal district court's decision to modify a protective order. Putting aside the question of

8 U.S.C. § 2423(b). Jane Does #1 through #19 were all minors at the time of their involvement with defendant Epstein. Jane Doe #11 was a resident of New York; the remaining Jane Does were all residents of Palm Beach County, Florida, at the time of their involvement with defendant Epstein. Count 1 carries

84 Act also amended 18 U.S.0 . 9S 3041, 3042, 3154, 3156, 3731, 3772, and 4 282; 28 U.S.C. § 636; Fed. R. Crim. P. 5, 15, 40, 46, and 54; a nd Fed. R. App. P. 9. II. Release or Detention Pending Trial A. Generally A person arrested for a federal off unnecessary delay before the nearest avai initial

003546 Thru P-003552 Box #1 P-003553 Thru P-003555B Description FBI Reports of March 2008 interviews of additional witness/victim located in New York Printout of filenames from Federal Express subpoena response with Attorney notations Privilege(s) Asserted Work product 6(e) Contains informati

ssets implicated in an offender's wire fraud. * The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.