Epstein Secrets

897, 923 (1984). Here, as explained in Maxwell's due process motion to suppress and the reply in support thereof, the government misled Chief Judge McMahon to modify the Giuffre Protective Order and authorize the subpoena to Boies Schiller. The good faith doctrine does not apply when the government act

A: Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Disclose Alleged "On-going Criminal Investigations by Law Enforcement" or, In the Alternative, to Stay Proceedings. Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 15-cv- 07433-RWS, Apr. 18, 2016 EXHIBIT B: Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 15-cv-07433-RWS, Transcript, Apr. 21, 2016 EFTA00100291 Ghislaine Maxwell

n District of New York against Maxwell or Epstein's estate, the government deliberately chose not to intervene in the on-going unsealing process in Giuffre v. Maxwell. In the only other active SDNY case against Epstein, Doe v. Indyke, No. 20-cv-484-JLIC, the government intervened and moved to stay discovery, sayi

ces the Instant Investigation in 2018 65 5. The USAO-SDNY's Subpoenas and Ex Pane Applications for Materials 66 6. Proceedings before Chief Judge McMahon 68 a. March 26, 2019 Hearing 68 b. April 9, 2019 Hearing 70 EFTA00077607 c. Chief Judge McMahon's Memorandum and Order 71 7. Magistrate Judge

as aware, Doe v. Indyke was the "lone case in this District that has not yet been either resolved or stayed at this point. . . In 23 In particular, Giuffre v. Maxwell was resolved in 2017 and the determination of what material should remain sealed remains the only open issue. Accordingly, there is no more discover

by a stay in the Doe case because the outcome of the criminal case could resolve disputed issues in the Doe case. Such concerns are not present in Giuffre v. Maxwell. 57 EFTA00077689 particular, this matter appears to be the only remaining active civil case in this District in which claims against Ghislaine M

Judge Netbum, who had not yet ruled on the Government's other application in Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, et at, 17 Civ. 0616 (JGK) (SN), of Chief Judge McMahon's decision via a pane and sealed letter. (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. I). Subsequently, on April 16, 2019, Judge Netburn denied the Government's application. (

on in ordering the unsealing of the deposition materials and that Maxwell's interests outweighed the public's interests in access to the materials. Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413 (2d Cir.), (Dkt. No. 140-1 at 2). On October 19, 2020, the Second Circuit found that Judge Preska "correctly held that the deposition m

on a motion to dismiss without the benefit of the full factual record. The motion should be denied. allegations that were central to the dispute in Giuffre v. Maxwell." (Def. Mot. 4, Ex. I at 7:3-6.) (The last colloquy has been unsealed except for Minor Victim-2's name. (See 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP), Dkt. No. 1212-1).)

ces the Instant Investigation in 2018 65 5. The USAO-SDNY's Subpoenas and Ex Pane Applications for Materials 66 6. Proceedings before Chief Judge McMahon 68 a. March 26, 2019 Hearing 68 b. April 9, 2019 Hearing 70 EFTA00039422 c. Chief Judge McMahon's Memorandum and Order 71 7. Magistrate Judge

as aware, Doe v. Indyke was the "lone case in this District that has not yet been either resolved or stayed at this point. . . In 23 In particular, Giuffre v. Maxwell was resolved in 2017 and the determination of what material should remain sealed remains the only open issue. Accordingly, there is no more discover

by a stay in the Doe case because the outcome of the criminal case could resolve disputed issues in the Doe case. Such concerns are not present in Giuffre v. Maxwell. 57 EFTA00039504 particular, this matter appears to be the only remaining active civil case in this District in which claims against Ghislaine M

Judge Netbum, who had not yet ruled on the Government's other application in Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, et at, 17 Civ. 0616 (JGK) (SN), of Chief Judge McMahon's decision via a pane and sealed letter. (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. I). Subsequently, on April 16, 2019, Judge Netburn denied the Government's application. (

on in ordering the unsealing of the deposition materials and that Maxwell's interests outweighed the public's interests in access to the materials. Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413 (2d Cir.), (Dkt. No. 140-1 at 2). On October 19, 2020, the Second Circuit found that Judge Preska "correctly held that the deposition m

on a motion to dismiss without the benefit of the full factual record. The motion should be denied. allegations that were central to the dispute in Giuffre v. Maxwell." (Def. Mot. 4, Ex. I at 7:3-6.) (The last colloquy has been unsealed except for Minor Victim-2's name. (See 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP), Dkt. No. 1212-1).)

eedin s before 5. The USAO-SDNY's Sub.. nas and Ex Pane Applications for Materials 66 a. M 68 b. April ', 70 EFTA00095068 c. Chief Judge McMahon's Memorandum and Order 71 7. &OAS% 74 8. Unsealing of Maxwell's Depositions 74 9. The New York Daily News Article 75 B. The Defendant's Sup

stayed at this point. . . In particular, this matter appears to be the only remaining active civil case in this District in which 23 In particular, Giuffre v. Maxwell was resolved in 2017 and the determination of what material should remain sealed remains the only open issue. Accordingly, there is no more discover

by a stay in the Doe case because the outcome of the criminal case could resolve disputed issues in the Doe case. Such concerns are not present in Giuffre v. Maxwell. 57 EFTA00095149 claims against Ghislaine Maxwell have been asserted." (20 Civ. 484 (DCF) (JGK), Dkt. No. 80 at 2). The defendant's baseless con

eir' ginndell in the altemalEMENty, both Challudge firTihron and rt ige that Martindell applied allialliEleappan under that framewial As chAllige McMahon found, even under the Martindell approach, testimony provided pursuant to a protective order can be divulged to a grand jury if the government estab

ess attaches, and did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Maxwell's meritless arguments that her interests superseded the presumption of access." Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413 (2d Cir.) (Dkt. No. 140-1 at 3).43 On October 22, 2020, the defendant's April 2016 deposition was publicly filed. (See 15 Civ. 7433 (L

Count Six, stating that the "testimony is .. . far afield from the sex trafficking and sexual abuse allegations that were central to the dispute in Giuffre v. Maxwell." (Def. Mot. 4, Ex. I at 7:3-6.) (The last colloquy has been unsealed except for Minor Victim-2's name. (See 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP), Dkt. No. 1212-1).)