Epstein Secrets

M. (15-cv-7433, Dkt. Nos. 439 (sealed), 892, 953.) A consolidated appeal from the orders denying the unsealing motions is currently pending before the Second Circuit. v. Maxwell, No. 18-2868 (2d Cir.). On March 6, 2019, the Court of Appeals heard argument on the consolidated appeal, which was widely covered in

nd I am not at liberty to ignore it. The Government argues that the Court should decline to analyze its request pursuant to Martindell in light of Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). Like this case, Chemical Bank arose in a somewhat unusual posture: a party to a protective

Cir. 2019) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2). So, too, has Judge Preska redacted substantial material from the documents she has released on remand from the Second Circuit, again reflecting that Maxwell reasonably relied on the Protective Order. 20 EFTA00077595 reports were replete with misrepresentations and outri

) 8 Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935) 24 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) 11 Brown v. Maxwel, 929 F.3d 4 (2d Cir. 2019) 19, 20 Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) 14, 18, 19 Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 (1960) 20 Four Star Fin. Servs., LLC v

et. (15-cv-7433, Dkt. Nos. 439 (sealed), 892, 953.) A consolidated appeal from the orders denying the unsealing motions is currently pending before the Second Circuit. Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 18-2868 (2d Cir.). On March 6, 2019, the Court of Appeals heard argument on the consolidated appeal, which was widely cove

nd I am not at liberty to ignore it. The Government argues that the Court should decline to analyze its request pursuant to Martindell in light of Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). Like this case, Chemical Bank arose in a somewhat unusual posture: a party to a protective

), 2017 WL 4005452 (D.N.J. Sept. 12, 2017) 17 Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41 (2d Ck 2019) 3, 6 Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 510 U.S. 32 (1991) 17 Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) passim Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) 18 Giglio v. U.S., 405 U.S. 150 (1972)

es, and thirty-some depositions, including depositions of and Maxwell as well as several third parties. See Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 46, 51 (2d Cir. 2019) (explaining that discovery was "hard-fought" and "extensive" and noting that the court file, which includes only some of the documents created

rs, and courts strictly enforce them. See, e.g., Stewart v. Hudson Hall LLC, 20 Civ. 885 (SLC), 2020 WL 7239676, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2020) ("In the Second Circuit, there is a strict standard for modification of a protective order entered by a district court." (citation and quotation marks omitted)). This case

, 2006) 8 Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935) 24 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) 11 v. Maxwel, 929 F.3d 4 (2d Cir. 2019) 19, 20 Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) 14, 18, 19 Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 (1960) 20 Four Star Fin. Servs., LLC v

that 'implies the duty of establishing and maintaining civilized standards of procedure and evidence.'" United States v. Ming He, 94 F.3d 782, 789 (2d Cir. 1996) (quoting McNabb, 318 U.S. at 340). As the Supreme Court held in United States v. Payner, "Federal courts may use their supervisory power in s

Cir. 2019) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2). So, too, has Judge Preska redacted substantial material from the documents she has released on remand from the Second Circuit, again reflecting that Maxwell reasonably relied on the Protective Order. 20 EFTA00028953 --- PAGE BREAK --- reports were replete with misrepre

), 2017 WL 4005452 (D.N.J. Sept. 12, 2017) 17 Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41 (2d Ck 2019) 3, 6 Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 510 U.S. 32 (1991) 17 Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) passim Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) 18 Giglio v. U.S., 405 U.S. 150 (1972)

rders in civil litigation. Protective orders serve a "vital function" in civil litigation. Martindell v. Intl Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 295 (2d Cir. 1979). They promote "the `secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination' of civil disputes, by encouraging full disclosure of all evidence.

rs, and courts strictly enforce them. See, e.g., Stewart v. Hudson Hall LLC, 20 Civ. 885 (SLC), 2020 WL 7239676, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2020) ("In the Second Circuit, there is a strict standard for modification of a protective order entered by a district court." (citation and quotation marks omitted)). This case

8 Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935) 24 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) 11 Brown v. Marcel, 929 F.3d 4 (2d Cir. 2019) 19, 20 Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 1994) 14, 18, 19 Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 (1960) 20 Four Star Fin. Servs., LLC v. Commonw

that 'implies the duty of establishing and maintaining civilized standards of procedure and evidence.'" United States v. Ming He, 94 F.3d 782, 789 (2d Cir. 1996) (quoting McNabb, 318 U.S. at 340). As the Supreme Court held in United States v. Payner, "Federal courts may use their supervisory power in s

Cir. 2019) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2). So, too, has Judge Preska redacted substantial material from the documents she has released on remand from the Second Circuit, again reflecting that Maxwell reasonably relied on the Protective Order. 20 EFTA00029124 --- PAGE BREAK --- reports were replete with misrepre

), 2017 WL 4005452 (D.N.J. Sept. 12, 2017) 17 Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41 (2d Ck 2019) 3, 6 Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 510 U.S. 32 (1991) 17 Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) passim Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) 18 Giglio v. U.S., 405 U.S. 150 (1972)

rders in civil litigation. Protective orders serve a "vital function" in civil litigation. Martindell v. Intl Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 295 (2d Cir. 1979). They promote "the `secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination' of civil disputes, by encouraging full disclosure of all evidence.

rs, and courts strictly enforce them. See, e.g., Stewart v. Hudson Hall LLC, 20 Civ. 885 (SLC), 2020 WL 7239676, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2020) ("In the Second Circuit, there is a strict standard for modification of a protective order entered by a district court." (citation and quotation marks omitted)). This case

cipient of a grand jury subpoena to comply with such a subpoena under the circumstances presented here. The Court is best guided by the decision in Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1994), which rejected an application for a party in civil litigation to be held in contempt for

ages of litigation—"a court may properly permit modification of the order." Id. (citing In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 821 F.2d 139, 147 (2d Cir. 1987)); see also Allen v. City of New York, 420 F.Supp.2d 295, 301 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (Mag. J. Gorenstein) (analyzing the differently-situated interes